Omniscience vs Free Will

[biggles53]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....

[smyrna]

Good night Mr. biggles53. I can now sleep comfortably knowing that you don't have the only purply blue envelope by their thread.:mrgreen:

[Semi-Sweet]

The wisdom of this world insists that we live by sight by rules of common sense.

People cannot be expected to believe what is contrary to common sense.

Grace is absurd. The very basics of faith is absurd to the world. How much sense does prayer make? Walking on water. Water to wine. Dead men brought to life. To find ones life is to lose it. Dipping in water to cure leprosy. Strength in weakness. . . . .

2 Cor. 12:9. . ."My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." "For the sake of Christ, then I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities: for when I am weak, then I am strong." :eek:

The only answer I have to give is to accept the mystery. . . .which is an act of faith. We can believe in God's foreknowledge and also believe that human kind is free to accept or reject.

[sideview]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....

With omniscience you can make any choice you wish and the outcome would still be known because all outcomes for all choices would be known. Free well would not be affected by omniscience because no choices were excluded.

[biggles53]

The wisdom of this world insists that we live by sight by rules of common sense.

People cannot be expected to believe what is contrary to common sense.

Grace is absurd. The very basics of faith is absurd to the world. How much sense does prayer make? Walking on water. Water to wine. Dead men brought to life. To find ones life is to lose it. Dipping in water to cure leprosy. Strength in weakness. . . . .

2 Cor. 12:9. . ."My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." "For the sake of Christ, then I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities: for when I am weak, then I am strong." :eek:

The only answer I have to give is to accept the mystery. . . .which is an act of faith. We can believe in God's foreknowledge and also believe that human kind is free to accept or reject.

But it's much more than a "mystery" SS. It's a completely illogical stance. To "believe" in God's foreknowledge, while simulatneously "believ[ing]" that humans have free will requires a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.....

[biggles53]

With omniscience you can make any choice you wish and the outcome would still be known because all outcomes for all choices would be known. Free well would not be affected by omniscience because no choices were excluded.

Not so.

Omniscience refers to the perfect foreknowledge of events. Not to being aware of a range of possibilities, but knowing exactly what will happen!

[Semi-Sweet]

But it's much more than a "mystery" SS. It's a completely illogical stance. To "believe" in God's foreknowledge, while simulatneously "believ[ing]" that humans have free will requires a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.....

That's what I said.

by SS. . The wisdom of this world insists that we live by sight by rules of common sense.

People cannot be expected to believe what is contrary to common sense.

[sideview]

Not so.

Omniscience refers to the perfect foreknowledge of events. Not to being aware of a range of possibilities, but knowing exactly what will happen!

I didn't say possibilities, I said outcome. As you stated "perfect foreknowledge of events" just add the word all. “Perfect foreknowledge of all events” You assume a simplistic linear one dimensional view of time.

[Physics Hunter]

As a rather fully convinced believer in TULIP, (Calvinistic salvation theology) Free Will and Omniscience give me no problems in this regard.

God knew that all fallen men would reject him. Yet he sent his Son to die for us so that he could choose some of us undeserving and entirely worthless people to serve his purposes. We all had Free Will and all rejected Christ, this is why it is called "Grace" = Unmerited Favor. If I accepted Christ by will would my resulting Salvation not be based in some small way on Merit?

God by Grace has circumvented man's free will to show his love, wonder, and power for His glory.


Now if someone wanted to press me on this answer as being limited in scope relative to the OP question, I will grant that in the scope of considering the philosophical topic of free will, this answer is extremely limited. However:

1) It shows that God could have a level of Omniscience. (Knowning that noone would accept Christ, and planning for it.) This relates to the OP Prophesy issue.
2) I believe it to be only the most important question of the ages.
3) I find that understanding of TULIP (accepted or not) to be sadly neglected in modern protestantism.

[Physics Hunter]

I didn't say possibilities, I said outcome. As you stated "perfect foreknowledge of events" just add the word all. “Perfect foreknowledge of all events” You assume a simplistic linear one dimensional view of time.

Agree on the simple view of time. Quantum theory, if we understand it correctly, may make the "all probable" outcomes the only reasonable answer to this given our current level of Physics.

My pastor argues that my view of this does not square with the Biblical Sovereignty of God. I am thinking on it.

[biggles53]

I didn't say possibilities, I said outcome. As you stated "perfect foreknowledge of events" just add the word all. “Perfect foreknowledge of all events” You assume a simplistic linear one dimensional view of time.

And, by your definition, you make a mockery of prophecy (as I alluded to in the OP). If god is going to 'hedge his bets' by including all possible outcomes in his foreknowledge, but not selecting one as THE outcome, we can safely say that he also has no idea of whether or not a particular prophecy will eventuate...so why should we not ignore said prophecy...?

[biggles53]

I didn't say possibilities, I said outcome. As you stated "perfect foreknowledge of events" just add the word all. “Perfect foreknowledge of all events” You assume a simplistic linear one dimensional view of time.

Furthermore, while time may exists in a multitude of dimensions, as the actions of men unfold, they do so in only one of those dimensions. And omniscience would demand that your god KNEW what that outcome would be for that particular person/action/dimension...

[NehemiahT]

It's a completely illogical stance. To "believe" in God's foreknowledge, while simulatneously "believ[ing]" that humans have free will requires a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.....

Seems to me the thing you don't consider is that "free will" is not the ability to do, but rather the ability to decide.

[biggles53]

Seems to me the thing you don't consider is that "free will" is not the ability to do, but rather the ability to decide.

Indeed. And it is impossible for you to "decide" anything that does not conform to the perfect foreknowledge of an omniscient being.

[sideview]

Furthermore, while time may exists in a multitude of dimensions, as the actions of men unfold, they do so in only one of those dimensions. And omniscience would demand that your god KNEW what that outcome would be for that particular person/action/dimension...

Consider cyclic time where all possible combinations has already been experienced.

And, although one may claim what they know exists based on personal experience, in the relative scheme of things the length of time man has been around and the minuscule amount of existence available for examination makes it rather silly to proclaim one knows what doesn’t exist or is not possible.

[biggles53]

Consider cyclic time where all possible combinations has already been experienced.

Have indeed. Forms the kernel for one of my 'pet' theories as to 'origins'.....:)

And, although one may claim what they know exists based on personal experience, in the relative scheme of things the length of time man has been around and the minuscule amount of existence available for examination makes it rather silly to proclaim one knows what doesn’t exist or is not possible.

Doesn't address the logical conundrum - the paradox. That a being, any being, should possess perfect foresight, means that any result outside of that sight is impossible. Therefore, free will is an illusion....

On the other hand, if will is completely free, then the ability for a being to have advance perfect knowledge of events is impossible...

[sideview]

Have indeed. Forms the kernel for one of my 'pet' theories as to 'origins'.....:)



Doesn't address the logical conundrum - the paradox. That a being, any being, should possess perfect foresight, means that any result outside of that sight is impossible. Therefore, free will is an illusion....

On the other hand, if will is completely free, then the ability for a being to have advance perfect knowledge of events is impossible...

Because you see a paradox doesn’t mean there is one, only that you at this time can’t see or understand the solution.

People see existence as coordinates and motion as object changing coordinates. That view has a number of paradoxes.

One is without empty space you mathematically you can’t get motion but if you have empty space you can’t get particles to bond or make larger particles.

A paradox only because we don’t understand we are looking at it backwards in the first place.

[NehemiahT]

Indeed. And it is impossible for you to "decide" anything that does not conform to the perfect foreknowledge of an omniscient being.

Now you got it!!!:hug:

So how does that negate your "free will"?:think:

[Finality]

Now you got it!!!:hug:

So how does that negate your "free will"?:think:
Because if you cannot do that except which the omniscient being already knew you would do, then you do not have free will.

Or in your semantics, if you cannot decide that except which the omniscient being already knew you would decide, then you do not have free will.

Free will requires uncertainty. Uncertainty destroys any meaningful sense of omniscience. Uncertainty could leave partial or limited omniscience, which is pretty lame for a god, imho.

As an aside, since when is decision-making not an action? Not a doing?

[NehemiahT]

Because if you cannot do that except which the omniscient being already knew you would do, then you do not have free will.Once again, "free will" is not doing, but deciding.

Or in your semantics, if you cannot decide that except which the omniscient being already knew you would decide, then you do not have free will.Okay, if this is so, why don't you believe what "the omniscient being" is telling you in HIS WORD? HE clearly tells you that you're "free" to choose HIM, and live forever, happily+. . .or you can not believe HIM, and suffer the consequences. So why have you "freely" chosen the latter, rather than the former?

As an aside, since when is decision-making not an action? Not a doing?You should have found that out the first time you decided that you were going to fly like Superman.

[Physics Hunter]

I am truly confused.

A) Is this a closed society?

B) Am I banned here?

C) Were my posts uninteresting?

[sideview]

Agree on the simple view of time. Quantum theory, if we understand it correctly, may make the "all probable" outcomes the only reasonable answer to this given our current level of Physics.

My pastor argues that my view of this does not square with the Biblical Sovereignty of God. I am thinking on it.


Not probable outcomes but experienced outcomes.

Free well is not linear but a series of decision points that occur when all relative forces are in balance enough that a single thought will become the controlling factor.

These decision points are likely more rare then people would like to think. So the number of actual choices an individual has is not infinite.

It would be foolish to assume any real knowledge or understanding of GOD by anyone.

[biggles53]

Because you see a paradox doesn’t mean there is one, only that you at this time can’t see or understand the solution.

People see existence as coordinates and motion as object changing coordinates. That view has a number of paradoxes.

One is without empty space you mathematically you can’t get motion but if you have empty space you can’t get particles to bond or make larger particles.

A paradox only because we don’t understand we are looking at it backwards in the first place.

Ah, but your holy books claim to have the "solution"! They claim an "all-seeing god" coupled with a "free will" for mankind. One is not possible while the other persists...

[biggles53]

Once again, "free will" is not doing, but deciding.

"Deciding" is an action - it IS "doing"...



Okay, if this is so, why don't you believe what "the omniscient being" is telling you in HIS WORD? HE clearly tells you that you're "free" to choose HIM, and live forever, happily+. . .or you can not believe HIM, and suffer the consequences. So why have you "freely" chosen the latter, rather than the former?

Because he, or whomever wrote on his behalf, could be wrong....!

You should have found that out the first time you decided that you were going to fly like Superman.

Wow....just wow.

[biggles53]

Now you got it!!!:hug:

So how does that negate your "free will"?:think:

Because, if your omniscient being has perfect foreknowledge of whatever my decision or action is going to be, I CANNOT decide or act otherwise. I am captive to whatever he/she/it has already 'seen'......

[Meriweather]

I am truly confused.

A) Is this a closed society?

B) Am I banned here?

C) Were my posts uninteresting?


What is confusing you?

A) We are a clothed society, not closed.
B) You may use whichever deoderant you want. Some use Ban; others of us prefer Secret, Arrid, or Old Spice.
C. This is the first post of yours that I've seen. (Suspicious) Are you using invisible type?

[Quantrill]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....

Sure you can have both. One pertains to God and one pertains to man. Just because God knows and has ordered all things does not mean mans decision does not have the consequenses of his decision.

God gvies man a will. He is placed in an environment where he exercises that will. His decisions will have consequenses. The consequenses are based on his decision.

Quantrill

[sideview]

Ah, but your holy books claim to have the "solution"! They claim an "all-seeing god" coupled with a "free will" for mankind. One is not possible while the other persists...

It only seems impossible to you because you are not all knowing. You’re putting limitations on things no human can possibly know at this stage of our development.

Under your reasoning because man cannot choose to do things that defy the laws of physics he doesn’t have free will. There are always boundaries but we are free to choose among the choices presented to us as individuals.

[Mobulis]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....


How about this, suppose you are given perfect knowledge of my life for 24 hours how would that negate my free will?

[Voxpopuli]

I am truly confused.

A) Is this a closed society?

B) Am I banned here?

C) Were my posts uninteresting?

I thought your posts were interesting. I wish someone had responded, mainly because I was curious when a Calvinist would speak up and your argument isn't the standard one used when addressing a theodical view of free-will. Although I've read a similar argument regarding freewill outside the realm of theology.

There is a saying about low hanging fruit getting picked. I suspect that may have something to do with it. Maybe someone will reply once they have had time to figure out how to reply to your post.

[biggles53]

Sure you can have both. One pertains to God and one pertains to man. Just because God knows and has ordered all things does not mean mans decision does not have the consequenses of his decision.

But it DOES mean that man can act in no other way than that which was foreseen by god! If he does, it means that god was 'wrong' in his 'vision'...

God gvies man a will. He is placed in an environment where he exercises that will. His decisions will have consequenses. The consequenses are based on his decision.

Quantrill

You're only telling half the story. God also supposedly is omniscient, which means he has perfect foreknowledge of all events. This means that man can only ever act in the manner in which god has foreseen...he therefore has no choice...he must act in the manner of god's foresight!

[biggles53]

It only seems impossible to you because you are not all knowing. You’re putting limitations on things no human can possibly know at this stage of our development.

Under your reasoning because man cannot choose to do things that defy the laws of physics he doesn’t have free will. There are always boundaries but we are free to choose among the choices presented to us as individuals.

No, not the laws of physics...the laws of your god! And it is the laws of your god which place the "limitations". The faithful are taught that he has perfect foreknowledge of..well...everything! This means that mankind can only act in a manner in accord with this foresight.

So, you are faced with a real choice...either he is omniscient, in which case your free will is illusory.....or, you truly do have free will and the omniscience of your god is concocted..

[biggles53]

How about this, suppose you are given perfect knowledge of my life for 24 hours how would that negate my free will?

Because, if my knowledge were truly perfect, any action or decision that you would take would have to be in accord with what I saw. Your 'choice' is therefore limited to ONLY what I saw. You may 'feel' that you are choosing without restriction, but in fact you are choosing from a pool of only ONE......

[RayMan]

<snip.

The two cannot logically co-exist.
<snip>

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....

Sez you.

[RayMan]

I am truly confused.

A) Is this a closed society?

B) Am I banned here?

C) Were my posts uninteresting?

No to all of the above. We love our Calvinists here in the RF.

If you had any idea how often I have posted something in the thread and the whole thread died as a result you wouldn't feel so left out. :hug:

[Quantrill]

But it DOES mean that man can act in no other way than that which was foreseen by god! If he does, it means that god was 'wrong' in his 'vision'...



You're only telling half the story. God also supposedly is omniscient, which means he has perfect foreknowledge of all events. This means that man can only ever act in the manner in which god has foreseen...he therefore has no choice...he must act in the manner of god's foresight!

You are mixing and confusing action in the present with action in the future. Future action speaks to what was done. Its no longer a question of "will" in the present.

God is omniscient. And knows all and has perfect knowledge of all events, yes. No, it doesn't mean man must act a certain way. It means God knows the way he will act.

Just because God knows how it will go does not mean Gods omniscience and mans will are opposed, or illogical. It just means God is acting as God. And man is acting as man.

Quantrill

[Mobulis]

Because, if my knowledge were truly perfect, any action or decision that you would take would have to be in accord with what I saw. Your 'choice' is therefore limited to ONLY what I saw. You may 'feel' that you are choosing without restriction, but in fact you are choosing from a pool of only ONE......


Except that just having the knowledge is not enough to negate free will, you would have to influence me somehow.

[Voxpopuli]

You are mixing and confusing action in the present with action in the future. Future action speaks to what was done. Its no longer a question of "will" in the present.

God is omniscient. And knows all and has perfect knowledge of all events, yes. No, it doesn't mean man must act a certain way. It means God knows the way he will act.

Just because God knows how it will go does not mean Gods omniscience and mans will are opposed, or illogical. It just means God is acting as God. And man is acting as man.

Quantrill

While Biggles has not asserted that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false his argument is making this assumption.

So, to make his point, if a future action is pre-determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being has knowledge of this event. The present decision cannot make a pre-determined event false in the future if it is already true, nor can a present decision make a pre-determined event true in the future if it is already false. There is no free will because the event has already been determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being would know whether the future even is true or false.

This argument rests on the premise that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false. Once you introduce the contingency of the future, something physics hunter alluded to earlier when he mentioned quantum theory, then the argument changes.

[Physics Hunter]

What is confusing you?

A) We are a clothed society, not closed.
B) You may use whichever deoderant you want. Some use Ban; others of us prefer Secret, Arrid, or Old Spice.
C. This is the first post of yours that I've seen. (Suspicious) Are you using invisible type?

Funny! :))

I am usually over on the political side, just branching out a little.

[Physics Hunter]

I thought your posts were interesting. I wish someone had responded, mainly because I was curious when a Calvinist would speak up and your argument isn't the standard one used when addressing a theodical view of free-will. Although I've read a similar argument regarding freewill outside the realm of theology.

There is a saying about low hanging fruit getting picked. I suspect that may have something to do with it. Maybe someone will reply once they have had time to figure out how to reply to your post.


Thanks for the reply. When I got no response at all I wondered if I had bumped into some posting/thread rule/environment that I had not yet encountered.

I have no problem with being ignored for my odd commentary. :)

[Physics Hunter]

No to all of the above. We love our Calvinists here in the RF.

If you had any idea how often I have posted something in the thread and the whole thread died as a result you wouldn't feel so left out. :hug:

I put a lot of threads to rest over in Wash Politics. I sympathize. Will try not to do it so much here. :)

Thanks for the reply.

[Meriweather]

Funny! :))

I am usually over on the political side, just branching out a little.

Welcome to RF. Don't give up on us. Sometimes we need a little extra time to formulate a reply. Other times we are nodding because what you said makes sense and you will get no argument from us. (That rattling sound you heard last night could have been a group of us nodding.)

[sideview]

No, not the laws of physics...the laws of your god! And it is the laws of your god which place the "limitations". The faithful are taught that he has perfect foreknowledge of..well...everything! This means that mankind can only act in a manner in accord with this foresight.

So, you are faced with a real choice...either he is omniscient, in which case your free will is illusory.....or, you truly do have free will and the omniscience of your god is concocted..

Your putting the cart before the horse or specifically reversing cause and effect.

The knowing was caused by the choice. Knowing what will be chosen is not the same as causing what will be chosen. Knowing the sun will set tomorrow evening doesn’t mean I cause the sun to set.

If I know you buy a donut every mourning, that knowing does not cause you to buy the donut. GOD isn’t dictating your choice just by knowing you always make the same choice.

[Quantrill]

While Biggles has not asserted that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false his argument is making this assumption.

So, to make his point, if a future action is pre-determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being has knowledge of this event. The present decision cannot make a pre-determined event false in the future if it is already true, nor can a present decision make a pre-determined event true in the future if it is already false. There is no free will because the event has already been determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being would know whether the future even is true or false.

This argument rests on the premise that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false. Once you introduce the contingency of the future, something physics hunter alluded to earlier when he mentioned quantum theory, then the argument changes.

So, we are talking about your argument now, correct?

In this case, the Omniscient Being and the One doing the determination are the same. So, whatever God has pre-determined or ordered will come to pass. No will of another will change it.

But, this does not mean man does not live and die and reap the consequenses of his actions based on his decisions or will.

Quantrill

[biggles53]

Sez you.

Yes, but more importantly....sez logic.

[Voxpopuli]

So, we are talking about your argument now, correct?

In this case, the Omniscient Being and the One doing the determination are the same. So, whatever God has pre-determined or ordered will come to pass. No will of another will change it.

But, this does not mean man does not live and die and reap the consequenses of his actions based on his decisions or will.

Quantrill

It isn't my argument. The free will/omniscience paradox has been around for a long time. I was attempting to clear up a misunderstanding you two were having.

No, in the argument the two are not the same.

The last part is pretty much what the whole idea arguing free will is about. Even outside of theology the idea of free will is discussed due to its impact on morality. Within theology it opens up another can of worms, predestined salvation, prevenient grace, irresistible grace, etc...

[biggles53]

You are mixing and confusing action in the present with action in the future. Future action speaks to what was done. Its no longer a question of "will" in the present.

God is omniscient. And knows all and has perfect knowledge of all events, yes. No, it doesn't mean man must act a certain way. It means God knows the way he will act.

And, if that "knowing" is indeed 100% perfect and accurate, then man can act in no other way than that which was foreseen. So, man's 'choice' is a choice of ONE only. "Free" will is therefore negated...

Just because God knows how it will go does not mean Gods omniscience and mans will are opposed, or illogical. It just means God is acting as God. And man is acting as man.

Quantrill

Not so. The two are intertwined. Because an event is foreseen perfectly, no other option is possible - THAT event MUST take place...

[RayMan]

Yes, but more importantly....sez logic.

That is your belief. Mine differs.just cuz you say logic demands a certain verdict in this case doesn't make it so.

[biggles53]

While Biggles has not asserted that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false his argument is making this assumption.

So, to make his point, if a future action is pre-determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being has knowledge of this event. The present decision cannot make a pre-determined event false in the future if it is already true, nor can a present decision make a pre-determined event true in the future if it is already false. There is no free will because the event has already been determined to be either true or false and an Omniscient being would know whether the future even is true or false.

This argument rests on the premise that future actions are pre-determined to be either true or false. Once you introduce the contingency of the future, something physics hunter alluded to earlier when he mentioned quantum theory, then the argument changes.


And that "pre-determin[ation]" is assured by the action of the Omniscient One having foreseen it!

[biggles53]

Your putting the cart before the horse or specifically reversing cause and effect.

The knowing was caused by the choice. Knowing what will be chosen is not the same as causing what will be chosen. Knowing the sun will set tomorrow evening doesn’t mean I cause the sun to set.

If I know you buy a donut every mourning, that knowing does not cause you to buy the donut. GOD isn’t dictating your choice just by knowing you always make the same choice.

Absolutely incorrect!!

If I am a perfectly omniscient being (remember, this is what makes ALL the difference!), then if I foresee that suns will rise, or that donuts will be bought, then those events MUST take place as I have seen them! If they don't, then my omniscience is LESS than perfect....

[biggles53]

That is your belief. Mine differs.just cuz you say logic demands a certain verdict in this case doesn't make it so.

No fair Ray. If I said to you that 2+2 must always equal 4 (base 10), is that my "belief" in mathematics, or is it simply that, in maths and in logic, we accept that each contain internal consistencies....?

[biggles53]

I put a lot of threads to rest over in Wash Politics. I sympathize. Will try not to do it so much here. :)

Thanks for the reply.

I also had seen your earlier post. Sorry for not replying but, having just finished reading extensively about the life of Michael Servetus, I was concerned I may say something about John Calvin that I might regret.....

[Voxpopuli]

No fair Ray. If I said to you that 2+2 must always equal 4 (base 10), is that my "belief" in mathematics, or is it simply that, in maths and in logic, we accept that each contain internal consistencies....?

Ah, but those contingencies found in logic tend to poopoo accepted internal consistencies. :lol:

[Voxpopuli]

And that "pre-determin[ation]" is assured by the action of the Omniscient One having foreseen it!

Do not forget to include future events being true or false next time. I won't always be around to make your point.

[sideview]

Absolutely incorrect!!

If I am a perfectly omniscient being (remember, this is what makes ALL the difference!), then if I foresee that suns will rise, or that donuts will be bought, then those events MUST take place as I have seen them! If they don't, then my omniscience is LESS than perfect....

You are defining perfect omnipresence as causing events rather than seeing events. Omnipresence is being everywhere at once with all possible views. You see it as foretelling the future rather then observing the present.

You are assuming our references past and future, but by definition with omnipresence there is only now. Everywhere includes at all times. A being aware in four or more dimensions not just three.

[biggles53]

You are defining perfect omnipresence as causing events rather than seeing events.

Indeed, it encompassess BOTH! To "see" an event perfectly means that it can occur no other way. In effect, perfect sight DOES cause an event to unfold in a particular manner.

Omnipresence is being everywhere at once with all possible views. You see it as foretelling the future rather then observing the present.

It can be both. But, in its relationship to free will, we are particularly focusing on its application to future events.

You are assuming our references past and future, but by definition with omnipresence there is only now. Everywhere includes at all times. A being aware in four or more dimensions not just three.

Irrelevant with regard to free will. As an individual 'decides' to take a particular action, he is constrained to ONE CHOICE ONLY, if you concomitantly hold that someone or something has/had perfect 'sight' of that event....

[sideview]

Indeed, it encompassess BOTH! To "see" an event perfectly means that it can occur no other way. In effect, perfect sight DOES cause an event to unfold in a particular manner.



It can be both. But, in its relationship to free will, we are particularly focusing on its application to future events.



Irrelevant with regard to free will. As an individual 'decides' to take a particular action, he is constrained to ONE CHOICE ONLY, if you concomitantly hold that someone or something has/had perfect 'sight' of that event....


If events are only observed as they occur they can not be predetermined. Decisions are only observed after they have occurred and not before. Regardless of the choice it is observed along with all possible choices at the same moment. Every possible state both true and false outcomes observed at the same time.

Both choices would still be available and none precluded because all possible outcomes are being observed as they occur and not before.

Always present, no past and no future, just present.

[biggles53]

If events are only observed as they occur they can not be predetermined. Decisions are only observed after they have occurred and not before. Regardless of the choice it is observed along with all possible choices at the same moment. Every possible state both true and false outcomes observed at the same time.

Both choices would still be available and none precluded because all possible outcomes are being observed as they occur and not before.

Always present, no past and no future, just present.

Aah, but here's your problem, as a believer in the Judeo-Christian god. He, or others on his behalf, have prophesied about particular FUTURE events - eg, if you behave in a certain way you WILL have eternal life; there WILL be a 'second coming', etc. His 'utterances' are couched in the future.

And remember, omniscience is NOT restricted to "observance of events as they occur". It encompasses the FOREknowledge of things as well...

Otherwise, our challenge to your god would be "What's going to happen?"...and his response, using YOUR logic would have to be "I'll tell you once it's happened..."!!

[biggles53]

By the way sideview, I notoice that you are intertwining the terms omnipresence and omniscience. Was this intended, as some of your statements don't logically follow....?

[Quantrill]

And, if that "knowing" is indeed 100% perfect and accurate, then man can act in no other way than that which was foreseen. So, man's 'choice' is a choice of ONE only. "Free" will is therefore negated...



Not so. The two are intertwined. Because an event is foreseen perfectly, no other option is possible - THAT event MUST take place...

Again, its not that man cannot act another way. It is that he didn't act another way.

Just because God knows how it will turn out doesn't mean the individuals will wans't involved. It means God knows the individuals will and results.

I realize Im repeating myself but I can't say it another way.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

It isn't my argument. The free will/omniscience paradox has been around for a long time. I was attempting to clear up a misunderstanding you two were having.

No, in the argument the two are not the same.

The last part is pretty much what the whole idea arguing free will is about. Even outside of theology the idea of free will is discussed due to its impact on morality. Within theology it opens up another can of worms, predestined salvation, prevenient grace, irresistible grace, etc...

Your argument as different than Biggles.

But the Christian does not and cannot separate the Two. God is both Omniscient and the Pre-determiner.

There is no illogic in it.

Quantrill

[biggles53]

Again, its not that man cannot act another way. It is that he didn't act another way.

Just because God knows how it will turn out doesn't mean the individuals will wans't involved. It means God knows the individuals will and results.

I realize Im repeating myself but I can't say it another way.

Quantrill

With respect, you are repeating yourself because there is no way out...

If you are going to assert that there is a being with perfect foresight of events, then 'free will' is an illusion. Man may think that he is taking a decision which is his alone to take, but he CANNOT act in a way which would be contrary to what his god 'saw'.

If that is not so, please name for me an action that could be taken by a man of which his god would have no knowledge, or would be in contravention of what his god had foreseen.

[sideview]

By the way sideview, I notoice that you are intertwining the terms omnipresence and omniscience. Was this intended, as some of your statements don't logically follow....?

Sorry….
Yes and no. Multi-tasking, have a sinus infection, pain killers and left out part of argument. If source of Omniscient(knowing all one choices to know)is the additional reported attribute of omnipresence then you aren’t predicting the future but observing the present.

Of course there are theologians who accept the notion of predestination but then you loose any logical reason for the process. Being omnipotent you can always establish any reality you want but what then would be the point.

If the goal is a state of compatibility to some higher state of being then logically artificially creating that state would not be satisfactory. Apparently only by allowing free will would you be able to realize the true state of being necessary to meet the desired goal. It’s the same as ‘if you cheat to win a trophy does it really have any value’.

What we consider prophecy may not be about foretelling the future but causing adjustments to a sequence of events. Just knowing the future changes the future enough to cause a difference but not enough to invalidate the prophecy.

[biggles53]

Sorry….
Yes and no. Multi-tasking, have a sinus infection, pain killers and left out part of argument. If source of Omniscient(knowing all one choices to know)is the additional reported attribute of omnipresence then you aren’t predicting the future but observing the present.

Of course there are theologians who accept the notion of predestination but then you loose any logical reason for the process. Being omnipotent you can always establish any reality you want but what then would be the point.

If the goal is a state of compatibility to some higher state of being then logically artificially creating that state would not be satisfactory. Apparently only by allowing free will would you be able to realize the true state of being necessary to meet the desired goal. It’s the same as ‘if you cheat to win a trophy does it really have any value’.

What we consider prophecy may not be about foretelling the future but causing adjustments to a sequence of events. Just knowing the future changes the future enough to cause a difference but not enough to invalidate the prophecy.

Oh, I would agree that the concepts of omniscience and omnipresence logically 'undo' each other (and themselves!). This is not the only reason why I reject the assertion of the faithful that such abilities exist.....

However, the argument of the faithful is that these qualities DO exist (isn't there a verse in Jeremiah(?) which talks of "knowing you before you were in the womb"...?), and that these qualities permit their god to know what will happen in the future, and to therefore be able to utter prophecy about it.

Personally, I find such a prospect horrifying. I can think of no other example which better typifies the essence of totalitarianism.

But, that aside, such an assertion undoes the situation of free will....

[sideview]

Oh, I would agree that the concepts of omniscience and omnipresence logically 'undo' each other (and themselves!). This is not the only reason why I reject the assertion of the faithful that such abilities exist.....

However, the argument of the faithful is that these qualities DO exist (isn't there a verse in Jeremiah(?) which talks of "knowing you before you were in the womb"...?), and that these qualities permit their god to know what will happen in the future, and to therefore be able to utter prophecy about it.

Personally, I find such a prospect horrifying. I can think of no other example which better typifies the essence of totalitarianism.

But, that aside, such an assertion undoes the situation of free will....


A man invents a time machine and goes back 10 years. Is the fact he is now in his own past, and knows what choices he is going to make for the next 10 years, change the fact he made those choices of his own free will.

If he then intervened to prevent a decision he didn't like would he have lost his free will for that decision.

[beaker]

Predestination is one thing that I struggle with.

I believe God is all knowing.

I believe everthing that happens in some way will lead to God's will.

I don't understand always why certain things happen and why they must happen and how they relate to what His will is, but nevertheless I trust that is what it is because God is soveriegn.

I do believe we have free will, but I don't fully understand how that works in relation to God's omniscience. I guess that is one of the mysteries we aren't meant to understand.

I do know the scriptures tell us that God has chosen some to believe. That there is an elect and there are those that are not. Why is this? I don't know other than to say it's God's soveriegn decision.

I do know the scriptures tell us that God wants all to turn from wickedness and back to him, but how can that be when He has chosen some to not believe?

I also know that Jesus commanded us to go out and preach the good news. What would be the point in doing that if God has already chosen who would believe?

The scriptures tell us that some were all ready chosen where Paul went to preach, why would he go and preach if they were already chosen. That's like singing to the choir. There had to be a reason for Paul to stay in these places and preach. It's obvious to me that the gospel needed to be presented so that some would come to the decision(free will) to believe.

I look at it like this: Let's say you love someone and have the power to keep them with you. Would you want that person you love to resist you affections and stay in that relationship because you want them too or would you rather that person you love to love you back and want to be there? That's kinda how I look at how our relationship is with God. He loves us, He wants to have a relationship with us, but He wants the love to be shared and mutual. He wants us to want to have that relationship as much as He wants the relationship.


Like I said, I struggle with this.

Beaker

[biggles53]

A man invents a time machine and goes back 10 years. Is the fact he is now in his own past, and knows what choices he is going to make for the next 10 years, change the fact he made those choices of his own free will.

If he then intervened to prevent a decision he didn't like would he have lost his free will for that decision.

Yes indeed! Because 'now' (back there 10 years in the past), he knows EXACTLY what will occur for the next 10 years....so he can behave in NO OTHER WAY!!

Precisely the ability that is assigned to your god....!

[biggles53]

Predestination is one thing that I struggle with.

I believe God is all knowing.

I believe everthing that happens in some way will lead to God's will.

I don't understand always why certain things happen and why they must happen and how they relate to what His will is, but nevertheless I trust that is what it is because God is soveriegn.

I do believe we have free will, but I don't fully understand how that works in relation to God's omniscience. I guess that is one of the mysteries we aren't meant to understand.

I do know the scriptures tell us that God has chosen some to believe. That there is an elect and there are those that are not. Why is this? I don't know other than to say it's God's soveriegn decision.

I do know the scriptures tell us that God wants all to turn from wickedness and back to him, but how can that be when He has chosen some to not believe?

I also know that Jesus commanded us to go out and preach the good news. What would be the point in doing that if God has already chosen who would believe?

The scriptures tell us that some were all ready chosen where Paul went to preach, why would he go and preach if they were already chosen. That's like singing to the choir. There had to be a reason for Paul to stay in these places and preach. It's obvious to me that the gospel needed to be presented so that some would come to the decision(free will) to believe.

I look at it like this: Let's say you love someone and have the power to keep them with you. Would you want that person you love to resist you affections and stay in that relationship because you want them too or would you rather that person you love to love you back and want to be there? That's kinda how I look at how our relationship is with God. He loves us, He wants to have a relationship with us, but He wants the love to be shared and mutual. He wants us to want to have that relationship as much as He wants the relationship.


Like I said, I struggle with this.

Beaker

I take it beaker, that you are some form of Calvinist....?

[sideview]

Yes indeed! Because 'now' (back there 10 years in the past), he knows EXACTLY what will occur for the next 10 years....so he can behave in NO OTHER WAY!!

Precisely the ability that is assigned to your god....!

Technically not true. The fact that an observation is being made adds a variable that was not there before. Though that difference is unlikely to have a major effect, the outcome no longer is an absolute.

So, omniscience can exist as long as you do not choose to use it. If you do use it and look at a specific moment then omniscience will cease to exist for the period of time of the observation because the outcome can no longer be absolute, only probable.

[beaker]

I take it beaker, that you are some form of Calvinist....?


I can see some of the Calvinistic points having some validity, but can also find fault with some of them.

I don't know, I can see validity on both sides of the arguement, but can't really bring myself to picking a side.

Like I said, I struggle with this.

[TheRealBigDaddy]

Knowing what the choice will be, does not negate the fact that the person chooses.

If you are presented a choice of 2 doors, and I know which one you actually will chose...that has no affect on the fact that you actually chose the door that I knew that you would. There is still a choice being made by the person of which of the 2 doors.

You are assuming that there is a causal affect, when in fact there is none.

[TheRealBigDaddy]

Also, for your logic, you have to limit god to only being able to be in our present.

[adroit]

Knowing what the choice will be, does not negate the fact that the person chooses.

If you are presented a choice of 2 doors, and I know which one you actually will chose...that has no affect on the fact that you actually chose the door that I knew that you would. There is still a choice being made by the person of which of the 2 doors.

You are assuming that there is a causal affect, when in fact there is none.

That would be an illusion of choice between the two doors. Say they are doors A and B. If I KNOW with 100% accuracy and cannot be wrong that you are going to choose Door A, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to choose Door B. If you chose Door B, I would be wrong, and therefore not omniscient. Thus, you have NO CHOICE, BUT to choose Door A.

You see, you have free will to decide what you want. The number of decisions is just one :)

[biggles53]

That would be an illusion of choice between the two doors. Say they are doors A and B. If I KNOW with 100% accuracy and cannot be wrong that you are going to choose Door A, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to choose Door B. If you chose Door B, I would be wrong, and therefore not omniscient. Thus, you have NO CHOICE, BUT to choose Door A.

You see, you have free will to decide what you want. The number of decisions is just one :)

Bravo. Perfectly put...

[biggles53]

I can see some of the Calvinistic points having some validity, but can also find fault with some of them.

I don't know, I can see validity on both sides of the arguement, but can't really bring myself to picking a side.

Like I said, I struggle with this.

I must admit that, of all the many Christian 'flavours', I have a particular problem with this one.

Apart from John Calvin being the man who had Servetus burnt alive, I think his Geneva would have been a horrid place to live. Totalitarian rule in one's physical world, coupled with the doctrine that states that mankind is divided, even before birth, into Elects and Reprobates, meaning that your 'cards are marked' for salvation/damnation for eternity.

I can understand your struggle.....

[Quantrill]

With respect, you are repeating yourself because there is no way out...

If you are going to assert that there is a being with perfect foresight of events, then 'free will' is an illusion. Man may think that he is taking a decision which is his alone to take, but he CANNOT act in a way which would be contrary to what his god 'saw'.

If that is not so, please name for me an action that could be taken by a man of which his god would have no knowledge, or would be in contravention of what his god had foreseen.

No, Im repeating myself because that is the answer. Just because a man made a decision that God knew he would make, does not mean the man didn't exercise his will and could have exercised it whatever way he wanted. It just means God knew the way he would choose.

Gods knowledge of the future does not contribute anything to your argument against free will.

You have to prove that the man when he makes the decision at that present time has been given no opportunity to make anyother decision at that time, to negate free will.

I believe this is what your friend, Viloxpoli, (I know I mispelled it), was trying to tell you.

Quantrill

[TheRealBigDaddy]

That would be an illusion of choice between the two doors. Say they are doors A and B. If I KNOW with 100% accuracy and cannot be wrong that you are going to choose Door A, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to choose Door B. If you chose Door B, I would be wrong, and therefore not omniscient. Thus, you have NO CHOICE, BUT to choose Door A.

You see, you have free will to decide what you want. The number of decisions is just one :)

Your logic is fatally flawed. You assume that their is a causal affect upon the act of choosing by the mere fact of knowing what the choice will be.

Look at it another way. Let's assume someone has complete free will using the scenario I previously outlined.

A guy is given a choice of 2 doors, and chooses A over B. I witnessed this in person, now I know which door he chose and now it is an hour later.

By the logic you are using, because he did choose A, he never had a choice in the first place...because I witnessed his pick, that was the only one he could have picked.

That's the problem. The act of knowing the outcome does not cause the outcome.

[meggers49]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....

Just because God knows what I'll do, doesn't mean I'LL know what I'll do. Hence, he has knowledge and I have free will.

I can't and don't have both, ergo, I can make the choices. That God knows what I'll choose is immaterial to me. I have to make the best choices I can make based on what I've learned from my faith. God knows what I'll do, but he doesn't MAKE me do anything. He wants me to have my faith in Him and believe in him and love him of my own volition, not because I'm forced to. I have the free will to do that or not. I choose yes.

[Voxpopuli]

Your argument as different than Biggles.

But the Christian does not and cannot separate the Two. God is both Omniscient and the Pre-determiner.

There is no illogic in it.

Quantrill

Once again, not my argument. Just clarifying the paradox.

My point is that biggles did not include his premise but only assumed it. As a result his argument is invalid. The paradox is a logical argument but without the premise it is invalid due to it being a formal fallacy.

This is an internet forum and not a logic class so it shouldn't be a big deal. However, it is difficult to reply to a invalid argument especially if key elements are missing. This leads to confusion and misunderstanding. The confusion is pretty obvious in this case, since the paradox has to keep being repeated.

So, if we include the premise that "future events are predetermined to be either true or false", the argument becomes valid.

Even if you assert that God is both omniscient and the one who predetermines future events, the paradox/omniscience paradox is still logically valid. As long as future events are predetermined to be true or false, no decision in the present can change those events, regardless of who has predetermined the events.

The obvious objection to this would be to challenge the premise as being true.

[biggles53]

No, Im repeating myself because that is the answer. Just because a man made a decision that God knew he would make, does not mean the man didn't exercise his will and could have exercised it whatever way he wanted. It just means God knew the way he would choose.

Perfect foreknowledge limits his 'choice' to just one! If you are limited to the only action that was foreseen by anyone with omniscience, then your will is NOT free. You make have the illusion that you have chosen freely, but, in order to prevent the omniscient one from being wrong, you MUST do as was foreseen.


Gods knowledge of the future does not contribute anything to your argument against free will.

Well....except for totalling destroying free will, of course....!

You have to prove that the man when he makes the decision at that present time has been given no opportunity to make anyother decision at that time, to negate free will.

Easily. Suppose he has a choice of two paths, A and B. God foresees that he will choose A. Now, according to you, his free will permits him to choose either A or B. However, if he chooses B, then your god was wrong in his 'vision'. In order for your god's omniscience to be preserved, the man MUST choose A! You may argue only that he has the ILLUSION of a free choice......

[Physics Hunter]

I also had seen your earlier post. Sorry for not replying but, having just finished reading extensively about the life of Michael Servetus, I was concerned I may say something about John Calvin that I might regret.....

I will look that up but I suspect that this is why I do not want to be labeled generally a Calvinist. I just hold to Calvin's take on the TULIP in regards to salvation and predestination. Not as to how believers should act on such. I could have said reformed, but they are serious folk who usually won't dance.... (And I respect their choices.)

[biggles53]

Your logic is fatally flawed. You assume that their is a causal affect upon the act of choosing by the mere fact of knowing what the choice will be.

Look at it another way. Let's assume someone has complete free will using the scenario I previously outlined.

A guy is given a choice of 2 doors, and chooses A over B. I witnessed this in person, now I know which door he chose and now it is an hour later.

By the logic you are using, because he did choose A, he never had a choice in the first place...because I witnessed his pick, that was the only one he could have picked.

That's the problem. The act of knowing the outcome does not cause the outcome.

Hmmm...fatal flaw??

What you're not including is that your god is attributed with having perfect foreknowledge! So, if he knows the outcome BEFORE the action takes place, the one acting MUST do so in accordance with the 'sight'...

[biggles53]

Just because God knows what I'll do, doesn't mean I'LL know what I'll do. Hence, he has knowledge and I have free will.

I'll meet you halfway...if your god has perfect foresight, then you have the illusion of free will...you think you are choosing freely, but in actual fact, you must act in accordance with what he saw....

I can't and don't have both, ergo, I can make the choices. That God knows what I'll choose is immaterial to me. I have to make the best choices I can make based on what I've learned from my faith. God knows what I'll do, but he doesn't MAKE me do anything. He wants me to have my faith in Him and believe in him and love him of my own volition, not because I'm forced to. I have the free will to do that or not. I choose yes.

Immaterial??? Oh no, according to the doctrines of your faith, it is MOST material that he knows what you will do!!

Because, here's the kicker....

According to those of you of faith, you will be judged for your thoughts, words and deeds of your lifetime, to determine your fate in the 'next world'. How immoral is it that you will be judged by a god for actions that he already knew you were going to take, well in advance..!??

[Physics Hunter]

I must admit that, of all the many Christian 'flavours', I have a particular problem with this one.

Apart from John Calvin being the man who had Servetus burnt alive, I think his Geneva would have been a horrid place to live. Totalitarian rule in one's physical world, coupled with the doctrine that states that mankind is divided, even before birth, into Elects and Reprobates, meaning that your 'cards are marked' for salvation/damnation for eternity.

I can understand your struggle.....

Ah, I see, and I am not in the least insulted. Calvin was flawed as are all men.

I find great joy in being one picked from the crowd to tell anyone I meet that Jesus died for them to be right with God and let God do the rest since I can, and was asked to do nothing more. I make no apology for Calvin.

[biggles53]

Once again, not my argument. Just clarifying the paradox.

My point is that biggles did not include his premise but only assumed it. As a result his argument is invalid. The paradox is a logical argument but without the premise it is invalid due to it being a formal fallacy.

This is an internet forum and not a logic class so it shouldn't be a big deal. However, it is difficult to reply to a invalid argument especially if key elements are missing. This leads to confusion and misunderstanding. The confusion is pretty obvious in this case, since the paradox has to keep being repeated.

So, if we include the premise that "future events are predetermined to be either true or false", the argument becomes valid.

Even if you assert that God is both omniscient and the one who predetermines future events, the paradox/omniscience paradox is still logically valid. As long as future events are predetermined to be true or false, no decision in the present can change those events, regardless of who has predetermined the events.

The obvious objection to this would be to challenge the premise as being true.

Not so.

My argument does not include such a premise and neither is it assumed. The argument stands on its own merits. The only assumption being made, on my part at least, is that a god exists and, according to those who 'follow' him/her/it, it possesses the ability to see all future events perfectly.....

[Physics Hunter]

Not so.

My argument does not include such a premise and neither is it assumed. The argument stands on its own merits. The only assumption being made, on my part at least, is that a god exists and, according to those who 'follow' him/her/it, it possesses the ability to see all future events perfectly.....

What if in the form of Macro vs Micro Econ we add Quantum Physics and say something analogous to God can see (I would add by his overwhelming greatness) the decisions that matter to his purpose, but not the Mustard or Mayo stuff.

I fully believe in Quantum, but I have no fear that my arrow will pass thru the target without making a hole.

[Voxpopuli]

Not so.

My argument does not include such a premise and neither is it assumed. The argument stands on its own merits. The only assumption being made, on my part at least, is that a god exists and, according to those who 'follow' him/her/it, it possesses the ability to see all future events perfectly.....

In that case, your argument is invalid.



How does an argument stand on its own merits? What is it supposed to be self-evident?

[biggles53]

How does an argument stand on its own merits? What is it supposed to be self-evident?

That there exists an omniscient entity that the faithful call 'god'.....that this entity has the ability to see perfectly all future events.

If I permit, as do the faithful, that this is a 'given', then all else flows from this assertion....

[Quantrill]

Perfect foreknowledge limits his 'choice' to just one! If you are limited to the only action that was foreseen by anyone with omniscience, then your will is NOT free. You make have the illusion that you have chosen freely, but, in order to prevent the omniscient one from being wrong, you MUST do as was foreseen.




Well....except for totalling destroying free will, of course....!



Easily. Suppose he has a choice of two paths, A and B. God foresees that he will choose A. Now, according to you, his free will permits him to choose either A or B. However, if he chooses B, then your god was wrong in his 'vision'. In order for your god's omniscience to be preserved, the man MUST choose A! You may argue only that he has the ILLUSION of a free choice......

All you have proved is that God knew how he would choose. You haven't proved there was no choice at the time of the decision. If the man had chosen B, then God would have known it was B.

There are plenty of other factors involved that affect mans will so that it is not as "free" as is supposed. Such as Gods will, God's determinate council, etc. But God's Omniscience as you describe it is not one of them.

Quantrill

[biggles53]

All you have proved is that God knew how he would choose.

And that, as Robert Frost famously declared, "has made all the difference..."!! When you reduce all possible outcomes down to just ONE, you effectively remove all 'choice'. Man may have the illusion of choosing freely, but your god's omniscience means that he has no choice - he was always going to choose the option your god foresaw.

You haven't proved there was no choice at the time of the decision.

Yes I have....see above.

If the man had chosen B, then God would have known it was B.

You have the events in the wrong order. If your god foresaw B, then the man could only choose B...

There are plenty of other factors involved that affect mans will so that it is not as "free" as is supposed. Such as Gods will, God's determinate council, etc. But God's Omniscience as you describe it is not one of them.

Quantrill

Wrong. See above....

[All2Human]

Free will is based on the concept of an autonomous "I". Foucault understands that the subject should be analyzed as a variable:

"We should suspend the typical questions: how does a free subject penetrate the density of things and endow them with meaning; how does it accomplish its design by animating the rules of discourse from within? Rather, we should ask: under what conditions and through what forms can an entity like the subject appear in the order of discourse; what position does it occupy; what functions does it exhibit; and what rules does it follow in each type of discourse?"

[TheRealBigDaddy]

And that, as Robert Frost famously declared, "has made all the difference..."!! When you reduce all possible outcomes down to just ONE, you effectively remove all 'choice'. Man may have the illusion of choosing freely, but your god's omniscience means that he has no choice - he was always going to choose the option your god foresaw.



Yes I have....see above.



You have the events in the wrong order. If your god foresaw B, then the man could only choose B...



Wrong. See above....

I am trying to not be uncivil, but the knowledge of what the decision will be, does not have any affect on the act of making the decision. They are unrelated. It is not a cause and effect relationship between the two. If you cannot understand that, then there is no point arguing this, why even start the thread when you are not going to be receptive to what others say? Your understanding of the matter is too limited.

Let me throw another at you, suppose you are a straight male and your homosexual male friend asks you if you want to fool around with him, all the while he knows your decision will be no, in fact he knows you so well, that he knows your choice with 100% certainty. Now, your choices would be either yes or no...but under your logic, their was no choice since the answer was already known.

[biggles53]

I am trying to not be uncivil,

Disagreement, even vigorous disagreement, does not equal incivility in my book. Please fire away...

... but the knowledge of what the decision will be, does not have any affect on the act of making the decision. They are unrelated. It is not a cause and effect relationship between the two.

Fine. Then please describe to me the event, having been foreseen by your god, that would not be then caused to eventuate...??

That's OK....I'll wait.

If you cannot understand that, then there is no point arguing this, why even start the thread when you are not going to be receptive to what others say? Your understanding of the matter is too limited.

Then, by all means, increase my understanding! Nominate an event as described above....

Let me throw another at you, suppose you are a straight male and your homosexual male friend asks you if you want to fool around with him, all the while he knows your decision will be no, in fact he knows you so well, that he knows your choice with 100% certainty. Now, your choices would be either yes or no...but under your logic, their was no choice since the answer was already known.

If my gay friend has the omniscience attributed to your god, then he already knows what my response will be, regardless of any knowledge of my character or sexual preferences....and you're dead right - no choice!

[Meriweather]

I am trying to not be uncivil, but the knowledge of what the decision will be, does not have any affect on the act of making the decision. They are unrelated. It is not a cause and effect relationship between the two. If you cannot understand that, then there is no point arguing this, why even start the thread when you are not going to be receptive to what others say? Your understanding of the matter is too limited.

First, I am not convinced that God can step outside the space-time continuum where His past, present, and future are all one. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but I have not yet been convinced.

The other part is that biggles is insisting that seeing something after it happens is fore-knowledge. That is not the case. The argument is not that God stays in the past/present and predicts what will happen in the future; the argument is that God can travel into our future, and note what we will do after we have done it. Then He can travel back to our time and announce it.

If a group of people are traveling through the desert, searching for water, and one traveler goes on ahead and then returns to announce he has found an oasis, that explorer did cause the oasis to appear; he just noted what and where it was and could describe a lot about it upon his return.

In the same way, if God can travel through time, He did not cause what happened. He just noted the landmark much as our desert traveler did--and then returned.

[biggles53]

First, I am not convinced that God can step outside the space-time continuum where His past, present, and future are all one. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but I have not yet been convinced.

Sorry Mer, but now you're doubting his omnipotence....! Having all those pesky 'super powers' comes with a cost, doesn't it....!

The other part is that biggles is insisting that seeing something after it happens is fore-knowledge. That is not the case. The argument is not that God stays in the past/present and predicts what will happen in the future; the argument is that God can travel into our future, and note what we will do after we have done it. Then He can travel back to our time and announce it.

If a group of people are traveling through the desert, searching for water, and one traveler goes on ahead and then returns to announce he has found an oasis, that explorer did cause the oasis to appear; he just noted what and where it was and could describe a lot about it upon his return.

In the same way, if God can travel through time, He did not cause what happened. He just noted the landmark much as our desert traveler did--and then returned.

Mer, it doesn't matter HOW your god does it. He can gaze into a crystal ball, study the entrails of chickens, or hop into his Tardis and take a trip to the future to 'see' it in person! Bottom line is, if his view of that future is perfect, then it can unfold in no other way than that which was 'seen'.

[Meriweather]

Sorry Mer, but now you're doubting his omnipotence....! Having all those pesky 'super powers' comes with a cost, doesn't it....!

Mer, it doesn't matter HOW your god does it. He can gaze into a crystal ball, study the entrails of chickens, or hop into his Tardis and take a trip to the future to 'see' it in person! Bottom line is, if his view of that future is perfect, then it can unfold in no other way than that which was 'seen'.


It is words that limit, not God. All the "omni" words attempt to present to us the immensity of God compared to a human being. All words are inadequate when it comes to describing God--sometimes when it comes to describing anything or anyone of grandeur. That is why the expression "words fail me" is quite common. This thread, in many respects, is not so much about describing God as it is about playing with words, word meanings, and their inadequacies.

In fact, when presented with choice, mankind does have free will. That is the point to work from if one wishes to try to understand God. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that God has given mankind free will only demonstrates a determination not to understand God.

Look at it this way. You come into a religion forum saying you are an atheist, and you wish people to understand that about you. However, what if we were to you cannot be an atheist because you are in a religion forum, proving you believe in God--no matter what you say or how you describe yourself. What if we would not see it any other way. Wouldn't you tell us, "Let's work from the fact I am an atheist in a religion forum."

The same is true about your present discussion about God. You should work from the fact that He has given us free will. If you do not, everything else is wrong from the get-go.

[TheRealBigDaddy]

Fine. Then please describe to me the event, having been foreseen by your god, that would not be then caused to eventuate...??

That's OK....I'll wait.

How about you name me a time when the person about whom a prophesy is written in fact knows that they are the subject of the prophecy (Other than Jesus).

Show me some evidence that if they did know it was about them, that they chose to follow the path of the prophesy, not because they then knew what the outcome would be, but because they had no other choice.

[TheRealBigDaddy]

Here are a few sites to read that show the fallacy in your logic.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#SH6b

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm#part2

[Voxpopuli]

That there exists an omniscient entity that the faithful call 'god'.....that this entity has the ability to see perfectly all future events.

If I permit, as do the faithful, that this is a 'given', then all else flows from this assertion....

This will lead to faulty reasoning. You are taking the paradox and attempting to use it in an argument without a supporting premise concerning the nature of future events. I've already seen a conflation between precognition and predestination on your part without any valid support for this assumption, let alone using the term "omni" as part of your argument. Do you not see how this also leads to a semantic fallacy? A philosophical paradox is meant to serve as a base for beginning a discussion. You have to bring more to the table than, "hey here is the paradox, have at it."

[mtdim]

This thread reminds me of Newcomb's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

Logically speaking, these question of free will get quite murky. I personally interpret Newcomb's paradox as a demonstration that omniscience is impossible, seeing as the assumption of its existence causes a contradiction between two other seemingly sound logical principles (the Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Dominance Principle). Therefore, the assumption which caused the contradiction (the existence of omniscience) should be discarded.

The alternative is accepting backward causation; the idea that a decision I make now can affect the thoughts and actions of some being in the past. Given how little we know about the nature of time such a phenomena is certainly possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely given the host of time travel paradoxes that then arise as a result (like that being using his knowledge of my future decision to act in such a way that will end up changing my decision in the present, which is what caused him to act in the first place).

Then again, many a smart philosopher has disagreed with my interpretation of Necomb's Paradox.

If you have time, definitely check out that wiki page; it's an absolutely fascinating problem.

[EDIT]

I just realized that there is another alternative to discarding the possibility of omniscience apart from backwards-causation; it also might be that free will doesn't exist.

So if I let:

A = Omniscience is possible
B = Backward-causation is possible
C = Free will is possible

then I would argue that: A => (B or ~C)
i.e. If A is true, then either B is true or C is not true.

[Voxpopuli]

This thread reminds me of Necomb's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

Logically speaking, these question of free will get quite murky. I personally interpret Newcomb's paradox as a demonstration that omniscience is impossible, seeing as the assumption of its existence causes a contradiction between two other seemingly sound logical principles (the Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Dominance Principle). Therefore, the assumption which caused the contradiction (the existence of omniscience) should be discarded.

The alternative is accepting backward causation; the idea that a decision I make now can affect the thoughts and actions of some being in the past. Given how little we know about the nature of time such a phenomena is certainly possible, I suppose, but seems unlikely given the host of time travel paradoxes that then arise as a result (like that being using his knowledge of my future decision to act in such a way that will end up changing my decision in the present, which is what caused him to act in the first place).

Then again, many a smart philosopher has disagreed with my interpretation of Necomb's Paradox.

If you have time, definitely check out that wiki page; it's an absolutely fascinating problem.

[EDIT]

I just realized that there is another alternative to discarding the possibility of omniscience apart from backwards-causation; it also might be that free will doesn't exist.

So if I let:

A = Omniscience is possible
B = Backward-causation is possible
C = Free will is possible

then I would argue that: A => (B or ~C)
i.e. If A is true, then either B is true or C is not true.

You mean Newcomb's Paradox? ;) I did think of this earlier on when there was the discussion of door A and door B. But for the most part, introducing Newcomb's paradox to an already confused thread will result in a giant explosion of confetti.

If you are interested in the paradox, I would suggest Nozick's approach to this as he takes an indeterministic stance. It might clear up some things.

[mtdim]

You mean Newcomb's Paradox? ;) I did think of this earlier on when there was the discussion of door A and door B. But for the most part, introducing Newcomb's paradox to an already confused thread will result in a giant explosion of confetti.

Thank you for pointing out my typo, I'm not aware of anyone named Necomb. :D

Newcomb's Paradox is a can 'o worms to be sure but, then again, this entire subject is a can 'o worms. I think it's useful in a discussion like this because it very concretely demonstrates a contradiction; two seemingly perfectly logical ways of making a decision that yield completely different results.


If you are interested in the paradox, I would suggest Nozick's approach to this as he takes an indeterministic stance. It might clear up some things.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to track down Nozick's original paper (even though I live on a college campus which has a big library and access to many databases, how disappointing is that?), but as far as I know his original presentation of the problem had a non-divine predictor; that is, the predictor was someone or something that made very accurate guesses, but not an omniscient being who knew what the outcome would be. In a discussion about free will and omniscience, however, it makes more sense to consider the problem where the predictor is an omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the outcome. When the problem is presented this way, Nozick's indeterministic stance seems less convincing.

In the case of omniscience, the predictor doesn't guess with a high degree of accuracy what you will choose, he knows beforehand what you will choose. This is why it seems to me that in order to accept the existence of free will in such a situation, we'd also have to accept backwards causation. Is my logic flawed somewhere?

[Quantrill]

And that, as Robert Frost famously declared, "has made all the difference..."!! When you reduce all possible outcomes down to just ONE, you effectively remove all 'choice'. Man may have the illusion of choosing freely, but your god's omniscience means that he has no choice - he was always going to choose the option your god foresaw.




Yes I have....see above.



You have the events in the wrong order. If your god foresaw B, then the man could only choose B...



Wrong. See above....

But the possible outcome was not one. The possible outcome was A or B. If he was going to always choose, then he had a choice.

I did see above and see nothing to say otherwise.

The order really doesn't matter. God dwells in eternity. The future is just as past to Him as 1984 is past to you. And if God forsaw B then that means the man chose B.

Quantrill

[WildRose]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....The two are not in any way, shape, or form incompatible.

An Omniscient God KNOWS what choices you will make. He however leaves you the ability to make your own choices.

If I put a bowl of food down for my dog, I know he will eat it, but it's still his choice.

If I leave Hershey's kisses on my wife's desk, I know she will eat them, but it's still her choice.

If you leave a twenty dollar bill on a sidewalk frequented by a homeless person, you KNOW he will pick it up, but it's still his choice.

Those are all examples whereby even a common man knows the outcome; an Omnipotent, Omniscient God therefore would have absolutely no problem in figuring out the rest.

[mtdim]

The two are not in any way, shape, or form incompatible.

An Omniscient God KNOWS what choices you will make. He however leaves you the ability to make your own choices.

If I put a bowl of food down for my dog, I know he will eat it, but it's still his choice.

If I leave Hershey's kisses on my wife's desk, I know she will eat them, but it's still her choice.

If you leave a twenty dollar bill on a sidewalk frequented by a homeless person, you KNOW he will pick it up, but it's still his choice.

Those are all examples whereby even a common man knows the outcome; an Omnipotent, Omniscient God therefore would have absolutely no problem in figuring out the rest.

Those are examples where you use prior knowledge to predict a likely outcome; you believe, based on evidence, that those things will happen, but you don't know they will happen.

Omniscience is a totally different beast. If you put two bowls of food on the floor, which will your dog eat first? You still might be able to make an educated guess, but an omniscient being would know with absolute certainty which one the dog will go to. So does the dog still have a choice? If a being knew he would eat out of bowl number one, then the dog either can't choose bowl number two, or else the being didn't actually know in the first place.

Unless, of course, we accept backwards causation; the idea a cause can occur after its effect. But that introduces several new paradoxes.

[-American-]

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Biggles53 is saying that we can't have both, why not?

It would only be appear "fixed" from an omniscient perspective, but we don't live in omniscience like God. We don't simultaneously perceive everything at once. We don't experience the fullness of the absolute, or know what that would really be like. Even the idea of this apparent fixity is based on a limited and very simplistic view of God. But that doesn't mean we don't make choices.

Let's say I had a vision of you in the future where you decided to have cereal for breakfast on a certain day in the future. You choose to have cereal that day. I saw it ahead of time, but I didn't "make you" choose waffles. You had the will to choose and you did - I just had a sneak peek.

If I saying nothing you choose to eat a bowel of cereal. If I were to say something you may decide to prove me wrong and have something else like a grapefruit.

The only way you could lose free will is if you knew for certain what you were going to choose, but then, by having that knowledge you would have the ability to change those choices.

Choice is blind to any self foreknowledge, if someone else has that foreknowledge that doesn't preclude our own power of choice.

[Voxpopuli]

Thank you for pointing out my typo, I'm not aware of anyone named Necomb. :D

Newcomb's Paradox is a can 'o worms to be sure but, then again, this entire subject is a can 'o worms. I think it's useful in a discussion like this because it very concretely demonstrates a contradiction; two seemingly perfectly logical ways of making a decision that yield completely different results.
I was just teasing you about the typo, my posts are chock-full of typos, I have no room to be pointing them out to others. Yes, the paradox does open up a can of worms. Then again, I believe that is the purpose of examining a paradox. It is great for starting a discussion, however, I think it is a silly notion for anyone to take them too serious.


Unfortunately, I have been unable to track down Nozick's original paper (even though I live on a college campus which has a big library and access to many databases, how disappointing is that?), but as far as I know his original presentation of the problem had a non-divine predictor; that is, the predictor was someone or something that made very accurate guesses, but not an omniscient being who knew what the outcome would be. In a discussion about free will and omniscience, however, it makes more sense to consider the problem where the predictor is an omniscient being with perfect knowledge of the outcome. When the problem is presented this way, Nozick's indeterministic stance seems less convincing.

In the case of omniscience, the predictor doesn't guess with a high degree of accuracy what you will choose, he knows beforehand what you will choose. This is why it seems to me that in order to accept the existence of free will in such a situation, we'd also have to accept backwards causation. Is my logic flawed somewhere?
Check your library for a copy of his work "Socratic Puzzles", it will be covered in depth in the book, the book is also an amazing display of rational analysis on Nozick's part. I should note that Nozick is probably my favorite contemporary philosopher so I might be bias in my comments. :)

You are correct in that Nozick did not use an omniscient being but a highly accurate predictor in his paper, which is as you stated not the same as being omniscient. I would agree that if we switch out an omniscient being for the predictor that Nozick's indeterminism is not as convincing but I believe that is because the argument has to be modified. You make a good point, in that introducing omniscience brings backwards causation into play. It is easier to avoid if one simply uses a predictor. I have seen valid uses of Newcomb's paradox with an omniscient being however it was slightly modified from Nozick's position.

I liked your post, it was a breath of fresh air.

[biggles53]

It is words that limit, not God. All the "omni" words attempt to present to us the immensity of God compared to a human being. All words are inadequate when it comes to describing God--sometimes when it comes to describing anything or anyone of grandeur. That is why the expression "words fail me" is quite common.

C'mon Mer...! I'm used to an analytical mind like yours coming up with something better than the "We cannot know the mind of God" defence! That's the convenient bolt-hole that much less capable debaters than you run down when faced with the contradictions of their beliefs...

This thread, in many respects, is not so much about describing God as it is about playing with words, word meanings, and their inadequacies.

No, not semantics...not from my point of view at least. It's all about the faulty logic used in attampt to erect two contradictory proposals...


In fact, when presented with choice, mankind does have free will.

I absolutely agree!

That is the point to work from if one wishes to try to understand God. The fact that you are unwilling to accept that God has given mankind free will only demonstrates a determination not to understand God.

No, you sell me short. It's a determination to run to ground a faulty argument...


Look at it this way. You come into a religion forum saying you are an atheist, and you wish people to understand that about you. However, what if we were to you cannot be an atheist because you are in a religion forum, proving you believe in God--no matter what you say or how you describe yourself. What if we would not see it any other way. Wouldn't you tell us, "Let's work from the fact I am an atheist in a religion forum."

The two are NOT incompatible assertions Mer...it is logically quite possible for me to be an atheist AND to be contributing in a forum on religion (or dog-handling, or house building, or cookery!)

The same is true about your present discussion about God. You should work from the fact that He has given us free will. If you do not, everything else is wrong from the get-go.

It is NOT necessary to grant that "He has given us free will", merely to recognise that free will exists, for the purposes of the argument. If free will exists, no matter where it 'came' from, it CANNOT logically maintain together with the concept of an omniscient being...

[biggles53]

How about you name me a time when the person about whom a prophesy is written in fact knows that they are the subject of the prophecy (Other than Jesus).

Show me some evidence that if they did know it was about them, that they chose to follow the path of the prophesy, not because they then knew what the outcome would be, but because they had no other choice.


Not sure what you're after here. Remember, as an atheist, I have no confidence whatsoever in prophecy uttered by, or on behalf of, your god or anyone else's....?

[biggles53]

But the possible outcome was not one. The possible outcome was A or B. If he was going to always choose, then he had a choice.

He had NO choice if the outcome was foreseen. As I have stated many times now, the BEST you can argue is that the ILLUSION of a choice is maintained - ie, he may clearly think he has a 'free' choice of the options; right up to the moment of action he may be undecided as to whether it will be A or B. However, once the choice is made, it MUST conform to the foreseen outcome, otherwise the omniscience of the viewer is destroyed...


The order really doesn't matter. God dwells in eternity. The future is just as past to Him as 1984 is past to you. And if God forsaw B then that means the man chose B.

Quantrill

Thank you...we're almost on the same page...just add the words "had to" before "chose B"...:)

[biggles53]

The two are not in any way, shape, or form incompatible.

An Omniscient God KNOWS what choices you will make. He however leaves you the ability to make your own choices.

If he knows perfectly what you will do, then he "leaves you the ability to make" a choice of ONE! You CANNOT choose otherwise, unless you want him to be 'wrong'.

If I put a bowl of food down for my dog, I know he will eat it, but it's still his choice.

If I leave Hershey's kisses on my wife's desk, I know she will eat them, but it's still her choice.

If you leave a twenty dollar bill on a sidewalk frequented by a homeless person, you KNOW he will pick it up, but it's still his choice.

Those are all examples whereby even a common man knows the outcome; an Omnipotent, Omniscient God therefore would have absolutely no problem in figuring out the rest.

If you were like your purported god, and had perfect foresight in these matters, then each of those people/animals could ONLY act in the way you foresaw. Their 'choice' is an illusion only.....

[biggles53]

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Biggles53 is saying that we can't have both, why not?

It would only be appear "fixed" from an omniscient perspective, but we don't live in omniscience like God. We don't simultaneously perceive everything at once. We don't experience the fullness of the absolute, or know what that would really be like. Even the idea of this apparent fixity is based on a limited and very simplistic view of God. But that doesn't mean we don't make choices.

Let's say I had a vision of you in the future where you decided to have cereal for breakfast on a certain day in the future. You choose to have cereal that day. I saw it ahead of time, but I didn't "make you" choose waffles. You had the will to choose and you did - I just had a sneak peek.

If I saying nothing you choose to eat a bowel of cereal. If I were to say something you may decide to prove me wrong and have something else like a grapefruit.

The only way you could lose free will is if you knew for certain what you were going to choose, but then, by having that knowledge you would have the ability to change those choices.

Choice is blind to any self foreknowledge, if someone else has that foreknowledge that doesn't preclude our own power of choice.

You answered your own question!

If I decided to eat a grapefruit, after you had foreseen that I would eat cereal, in other words I made a different choice to "prove you wrong", then guess what buddy...?

You DON'T have perfect foresight...!!

[Meriweather]

C'mon Mer...! I'm used to an analytical mind like yours coming up with something better than the "We cannot know the mind of God" defence! That's the convenient bolt-hole that much less capable debaters than you run down when faced with the contradictions of their beliefs...

You missed my meaning. As far as human beings are able to understand the mind of God, then we understand it. But the point I was attempting to get across is that the "omni" words fail in describing the mind of God, not that we cannot understand it to the best of our capabilities.


No, not semantics...not from my point of view at least. It's all about the faulty logic used in attampt to erect two contradictory proposals...

I absolutely agree!

No, you sell me short. It's a determination to run to ground a faulty argument...


You and I are probably closer in this argument than we have been in others. I understand your points, but the sequence is all mixed up. Start with what is known: Mankind has free will. Proceed from there.


The two are NOT incompatible assertions Mer...it is logically quite possible for me to be an atheist AND to be contributing in a forum on religion (or dog-handling, or house building, or cookery!)


Again, it seems I did not adequately get my point across. I meant, you cannot stop other people from thinking you secretly believe in God--and base that on the fact they see your presence in a religion forum. They can claim your presence here proves their conclusion. If that were the case, wouldn't you want to work to get them to understand and accept what is true: That, in fact, are an atheist?

Compare that to the fact that I want you to understand that God has granted us free will. No matter what arguments or conclusions you may form, you saying God has not granted us free will can be compared to me saying, "And you aren't really an atheist."



It is NOT necessary to grant that "He has given us free will", merely to recognise that free will exists, for the purposes of the argument. If free will exists, no matter where it 'came' from, it CANNOT logically maintain together with the concept of an omniscient being...


And here we come full circle. "Omniscient" is a word that fails in describing God.

[Quantrill]

He had NO choice if the outcome was foreseen. As I have stated many times now, the BEST you can argue is that the ILLUSION of a choice is maintained - ie, he may clearly think he has a 'free' choice of the options; right up to the moment of action he may be undecided as to whether it will be A or B. However, once the choice is made, it MUST conform to the foreseen outcome, otherwise the omniscience of the viewer is destroyed...




Thank you...we're almost on the same page...just add the words "had to" before "chose B"...:)

You keep saying one has no choice if the choice was forseen. This is just of your making, something you believe is an evident law, but it's not. And you keep saying the best I can argue is it is an illusion. Which is also of your making. I dont agree with either.

As you must agree, there are two possibilities. A choice is made. Now your saying once the choice is made, it must conform. Yet you plainly indicate the choice was made.

Your inclusion that, what was forseen must be else the credibility of the Omniscient God would be destroyed, indicates your belief that God would not allow it to go another way even if it could. From this I see you understand little of God or prophecy or Gods foreknowledge.

How can we be almost on the same page when I said the order doesn't matter and you said I had the order wrong? No, we will always be far apart.

Quantrill

[TheRealBigDaddy]

Not sure what you're after here. Remember, as an atheist, I have no confidence whatsoever in prophecy uttered by, or on behalf of, your god or anyone else's....?

I have already posted a rundown of the "modal fallacy" that is the sole basis of your argument and even posted links to explanations of it on two different philosophy sites. Now if you can somehow debunk what I posted,and I'd like to see you try, please feel free. Just be sure to post links supporting your claims, please screen them to where they are written and or posted by people of equal credentials, i.e. a Philosophy Professor credentialed with a PhD and published multiple times, but as it stands now, your logic has been proven to be flawed.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#SH6b

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm#part2

[-American-]

You answered your own question!

If I decided to eat a grapefruit, after you had foreseen that I would eat cereal, in other words I made a different choice to "prove you wrong", then guess what buddy...?

You DON'T have perfect foresight...!!

But remember: the argument only works IF you can prove the vision wrong. And there is the rub. God can have perfect foresight while we are ignorant, hence we have choice.

[biggles53]

You keep saying one has no choice if the choice was forseen. This is just of your making, something you believe is an evident law, but it's not. And you keep saying the best I can argue is it is an illusion. Which is also of your making. I dont agree with either.

No, it's not of my making - it's of yours! Please remember, I have no belief whatsoever that your god even exists, let alone that he possesses all the 'omnis'. I am simply holding YOUR assertions up to the light.....

As you must agree, there are two possibilities. A choice is made. Now your saying once the choice is made, it must conform. Yet you plainly indicate the choice was made.

You're playing with nothing more than semantics here, as do the 'modal fallacy' crowd. You can replace "choice" with simply "action taken" if you wish...

Your inclusion that, what was forseen must be else the credibility of the Omniscient God would be destroyed, indicates your belief that God would not allow it to go another way even if it could. From this I see you understand little of God or prophecy or Gods foreknowledge.

So, when he prophesies that, if you follow a certain 'path' in this life, that your soul will be 'saved' and that you will live an eternity in paradise, what you're telling me is that this might not be the case? That he might be in error in foretelling such things? When he prophesies that there will be a 'second coming' of Jesus, that this will be accompanied by Armaggedons and tribulations and raptures, that this might only be one of a number of 'guesses'...? When he prophesies that Satan will be defeated, he's just taking a stab in the dark....?

Please, enlighten my "understanding"........

[biggles53]

You and I are probably closer in this argument than we have been in others. I understand your points, but the sequence is all mixed up. Start with what is known: Mankind has free will. Proceed from there.



Meri, you know that, as an atheist, I proceed no further. Mankind has free will. Period. We take actions, we make decisions and we take responsibility for those...here, on this earth, go no further.

The argument I produce rests on the assertions made by the 'faithful' themselves. That, in tandem with this free will, there also exists a being with perfect foresight (and rear sight and current sight) of all that happens/has happened/will happen within the boundaries of what we know as our 'reality'.

If you are going to hold to such a contention (omniscient being), then the best you can assert about free will is that, to mankind, it seems as if we have freedom in our choices. However, if the foresight of your god is perfect, then our choices were predetermined.

You see, it can be viewed from two stances.

From the view of man, it's almost like 'ignorance is bliss'. Men go about their lives and make choices and decisions every day - will I take the last cookie in the jar, will I lie to the tax man, will I cheat on my wife, will I hand in the $50 bill I found on the street? From our point of view, we are faced with a real choice - we can go either way on each of these questions, we may not even know which choice we will make until the very moment of so doing. We believe that our options are completely open.

Now look at it from the view of a supposedly omniscient god. He sees us naively believing that we have a free choice, all the while knowing exactly what that choice will be, in absolute perfect detail. He knows that our choice is actually Hobson's Choice, we can take no other than what he has seen, even though we may 'feel' as though it were otherwise...

And I think you already know the conclusion I would then draw from this.....?

[biggles53]

I have already posted a rundown of the "modal fallacy" that is the sole basis of your argument and even posted links to explanations of it on two different philosophy sites. Now if you can somehow debunk what I posted,and I'd like to see you try, please feel free. Just be sure to post links supporting your claims, please screen them to where they are written and or posted by people of equal credentials, i.e. a Philosophy Professor credentialed with a PhD and published multiple times, but as it stands now, your logic has been proven to be flawed.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#SH6b

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm#part2

The first of your references I can't read properly - much of the symbology just turns to unintelligible wingdings on my screen .. ?

In the second, I disagree that this isn't simply a semantic argument - I think the charges of fallacy ARE largely about semantics. Further I claim there IS a causal link between omniscience and the choices men make.

I repeat an earlier challenge. Describe to me ANY act or decision taken by a man which can oppose that foreseen by a perfectly omniscient being. CAUSE-> EFFECT.

[Quantrill]

No, it's not of my making - it's of yours! Please remember, I have no belief whatsoever that your god even exists, let alone that he possesses all the 'omnis'. I am simply holding YOUR assertions up to the light.....



You're playing with nothing more than semantics here, as do the 'modal fallacy' crowd. You can replace "choice" with simply "action taken" if you wish...



So, when he prophesies that, if you follow a certain 'path' in this life, that your soul will be 'saved' and that you will live an eternity in paradise, what you're telling me is that this might not be the case? That he might be in error in foretelling such things? When he prophesies that there will be a 'second coming' of Jesus, that this will be accompanied by Armaggedons and tribulations and raptures, that this might only be one of a number of 'guesses'...? When he prophesies that Satan will be defeated, he's just taking a stab in the dark....?

Please, enlighten my "understanding"........


But, your conclusions over my assertions are not right. Your conclusions are yours, not mine. And your light is somewhat dim.

There will most definitely be a 2nd Coming, Tribulation, Armageddon, defeat of Satan, etc. etc. Its a done deal. Finished. No ?. No doubt. No will in Heaven or Earth can stop it.

There will be those brought to a saving knowledge and relationship to God through belief. That also is a done deal. Known only to God.

But, it is brought to the individual through belief which is influenced by God. God revealing Himself to their spirit. God opening their eyes. Which definitely affects their decision making.

Quantrill

[biggles53]

But, your conclusions over my assertions are not right. Your conclusions are yours, not mine. And your light is somewhat dim.

There will most definitely be a 2nd Coming, Tribulation, Armageddon, defeat of Satan, etc. etc. Its a done deal. Finished. No ?. No doubt. No will in Heaven or Earth can stop it.

There will be those brought to a saving knowledge and relationship to God through belief. That also is a done deal. Known only to God.

But, it is brought to the individual through belief which is influenced by God. God revealing Himself to their spirit. God opening their eyes. Which definitely affects their decision making.

Quantrill

Exactly! You would argue that there is a finality in the pronouncements (supposed) of your god - "done deal" you say. Which is exactly the opposite of what you had to say in criticising my 'poor' understanding of his omniscience, prophecy, etc...

Please make up your mind......

[Semi-Sweet]

But it's much more than a "mystery" SS. It's a completely illogical stance. To "believe" in God's foreknowledge, while simulatneously "believ[ing]" that humans have free will requires a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.....

It is obvious that the creator must possess a personality far superior to ours, otherwise He could not commit to others what He does not Himself have.

God is spiritual, and is unlimited and unconfined by time or space.

He suffers no restrictions and is infinite . . . . . . unlimited.

He is immutable. In view of the fact that God possesses all things good and is perfect. He cannot acquire a perfection nor lose one.

One who experiences perfection in the absolute can find nothing to adopt, else He would not be perfect, seeing that He lacks something.

By the same token, He cannot be divested of any attribute or quality that He possesses and remain perfect.

James 1:17. . ."Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

He is what He is. What we think about Him does not change what He is. You have the freedom (free will) to reject Him or accept Him. It is that simple.

[Quantrill]

Exactly! You would argue that there is a finality in the pronouncements (supposed) of your god - "done deal" you say. Which is exactly the opposite of what you had to say in criticising my 'poor' understanding of his omniscience, prophecy, etc...

Please make up your mind......

Yes, done deal.

No, you were basing what you said on "omniscience" alone. Remember. Others tried to include God's action in bringing these things about but you refused.

So I have said nothing opposite. My mind is the same.

Quantrill

[Meriweather]

Meri, you know that, as an atheist, I proceed no further. Mankind has free will. Period. We take actions, we make decisions and we take responsibility for those...here, on this earth, go no further.

The argument I produce rests on the assertions made by the 'faithful' themselves. That, in tandem with this free will, there also exists a being with perfect foresight (and rear sight and current sight) of all that happens/has happened/will happen within the boundaries of what we know as our 'reality'.

If you are going to hold to such a contention (omniscient being), then the best you can assert about free will is that, to mankind, it seems as if we have freedom in our choices. However, if the foresight of your god is perfect, then our choices were predetermined.

You see, it can be viewed from two stances.

From the view of man, it's almost like 'ignorance is bliss'. Men go about their lives and make choices and decisions every day - will I take the last cookie in the jar, will I lie to the tax man, will I cheat on my wife, will I hand in the $50 bill I found on the street? From our point of view, we are faced with a real choice - we can go either way on each of these questions, we may not even know which choice we will make until the very moment of so doing. We believe that our options are completely open.

Now look at it from the view of a supposedly omniscient god. He sees us naively believing that we have a free choice, all the while knowing exactly what that choice will be, in absolute perfect detail. He knows that our choice is actually Hobson's Choice, we can take no other than what he has seen, even though we may 'feel' as though it were otherwise...

And I think you already know the conclusion I would then draw from this.....?
I believe in free will. I do not believe in pre-determinism. Does God know things before they happen, or does He see them after they happen because he can travel through time, or even be in all times at the same time? Just because God knows, does it change or even affect free will?

I've always argued that God knowing what will happen can be more accurately compared to me deciding to make a chocolate cake. Before I make the cake, I know what the result will be, having made chocolate cakes before. I've always considered God's knowledge more along those lines, not fore knowledge.

On the other hand, there have been six events in my life that can only be explained by the concepts of fore knowledge or precognition. I knew absolutely what would happen before it happened. Not only can't I explain it, especially with the last incident, I can't explain why the episode of precognition should have happened to me at all.

Let's take a look at the last incident, which happened right here on Hannity. At the time it happened, it struck me so hard, I made a few notes, wanting something to compare to.

In early June, there was a troll attack on the Religion Forum one afternoon. DaGooseMon was the Moderator on hand, and I was one of the ones who was trying to assist by feeding him links to the troll posts. Things were a little wild for awhile, and I made a mistake--I clicked on the wrong post and sent Goose a link to a regular member--who Goose almost banned along with the rest of the trolls. Goose made a post laughing about this,asking me if I was trying to slip jibaro in for banning. I barely had the time to consider how funny that was before a second "scene" overshadowed what was currently happening and I was was seeing how Goose was going to hate it when he had to ban jibaro for real.

What is interesting about this is that I barely knew Jibaro and I don't know Goose all that well, either. Jibaro was only a sometimes poster in the Religion Forum, and I seldom post anywhere else. Goose does not often pick up on Religion Forum issues. I had no idea of how well--or how little--Goose and Jibaro knew each other. All I knew was that Goose was going to have to ban jibaro, and he was going to hate having to do it. The reason I wrote it down is because I wanted to make it clear that Goose would be the one to ban--and that he would be upset. If jibaro got banned by someone else, it couldn't be true fore knowledge; if he got banned by Goose, but Goose was undisturbed by it, it didn't count.

Later on that month, about 25 days later, Goose banned jibaro--and yes, he did appear to hate having to do so.

Let me make it clear. I cannot look into the future, and this doesn't happen to me often--and I often wonder the whys and purpose of it. There has never been anything I could do about it. While this tends to support your argument--I still don't believe it does, even though it happened to me. I don't believe jibaro had no choice but to commit a bannable offense; I don't believe out of seven Moderators, only Goose could have banned him; I don't believe Goose had no choice other than to feel a bit upset over the need to ban and to issue the ban. Instead, I would suggest that the free choices everyone made then somehow sent vibrations backwards into the past that for some odd, unknown reason I was able to pick up on. No, I've never been able to see before or since, that a poster would be banned. I don't know why I saw that one--it never did make any sense to me.

But the point is, despite all of this, I am adamantly convinced there is free will. Whatever God knows, how He knows it, or when, does not negate free will.

[biggles53]

It is obvious that the creator must possess a personality far superior to ours, otherwise He could not commit to others what He does not Himself have.

God is spiritual, and is unlimited and unconfined by time or space.

He suffers no restrictions and is infinite . . . . . . unlimited.

He is immutable. In view of the fact that God possesses all things good and is perfect. He cannot acquire a perfection nor lose one.

One who experiences perfection in the absolute can find nothing to adopt, else He would not be perfect, seeing that He lacks something.

By the same token, He cannot be divested of any attribute or quality that He possesses and remain perfect.

James 1:17. . ."Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change."

He is what He is. What we think about Him does not change what He is. You have the freedom (free will) to reject Him or accept Him. It is that simple.

You are indeed correct. I can choose to believe or not believe...in ANY god.

However, what has this to do with accepting an illogical proposition concerning free will and omniscience...??

[TheRealBigDaddy]

The first of your references I can't read properly - much of the symbology just turns to unintelligible wingdings on my screen .. ?

In the second, I disagree that this isn't simply a semantic argument - I think the charges of fallacy ARE largely about semantics. Further I claim there IS a causal link between omniscience and the choices men make.

I repeat an earlier challenge. Describe to me ANY act or decision taken by a man which can oppose that foreseen by a perfectly omniscient being. CAUSE-> EFFECT.

If you can't see the images on the one, it doesn't really matter, they both say the same thing.

Just because you, a lay man, say something doesn't make it so.

There is no more of a causal effect on a future event by the knowing of the outcome, than there is a causal effect on a past event by knowing the outcome.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Modal

Modal

This is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the consequent of the conditional. “The” modal fallacy is the most well known of the infinitely many errors involving modal concepts, concepts such as necessity, possibility and so forth. A conditional is an if-then proposition. The consequent is the then-part, and the antecedent is the if-part.
Example:

If a proposition is true, then it can not be false. But if a proposition can not be false, then it is not only true but necessarily true. Therefore, if a proposition is true, then it’s necessarily true.

The acceptable interpretation of the first premise, requires the modality to apply to the entire conditional in the sense that it really means “It’s not possible that if a proposition is true, then it’s false.” However, the entire inference works only if the first premise is miscontrued as saying “If a proposition is true, then it is necessary that it’s not false.”

To see that the misconstrual is unacceptable, pick a proposition such as “It’s raining in Detroit.” Let’s suppose it actually is raining in Detroit. So, the antecedent of the misconstrual is true, but the consequent isn’t, because it says “It is necessary that ‘it’s raining in Detroit’ is not false.” This isn’t necessary, is it?

[IndyBec]

No, not the laws of physics...the laws of your god! And it is the laws of your god which place the "limitations". The faithful are taught that he has perfect foreknowledge of..well...everything! This means that mankind can only act in a manner in accord with this foresight.

So, you are faced with a real choice...either he is omniscient, in which case your free will is illusory.....or, you truly do have free will and the omniscience of your god is concocted..


Did God ever say, "I know what you're doing, therefore you have no free will?"


Omniscience and free will defy your understanding of what God has said.

In any case, your logic operates on very weak strands. Name what power knowledge has over action.

It is possible to get lost in deductive logic.

[biggles53]

If you can't see the images on the one, it doesn't really matter, they both say the same thing.

Just because you, a lay man, say something doesn't make it so.

There is no more of a causal effect on a future event by the knowing of the outcome, than there is a causal effect on a past event by knowing the outcome.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Modal

Modal

This is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the consequent of the conditional. “The” modal fallacy is the most well known of the infinitely many errors involving modal concepts, concepts such as necessity, possibility and so forth. A conditional is an if-then proposition. The consequent is the then-part, and the antecedent is the if-part.
Example:

If a proposition is true, then it can not be false. But if a proposition can not be false, then it is not only true but necessarily true. Therefore, if a proposition is true, then it’s necessarily true.

The acceptable interpretation of the first premise, requires the modality to apply to the entire conditional in the sense that it really means “It’s not possible that if a proposition is true, then it’s false.” However, the entire inference works only if the first premise is miscontrued as saying “If a proposition is true, then it is necessary that it’s not false.”

To see that the misconstrual is unacceptable, pick a proposition such as “It’s raining in Detroit.” Let’s suppose it actually is raining in Detroit. So, the antecedent of the misconstrual is true, but the consequent isn’t, because it says “It is necessary that ‘it’s raining in Detroit’ is not false.” This isn’t necessary, is it?


OK, let's put this in the language that you seem to prefer.....(and a hat tip to Occam's laser at RDF for the guidance..)


P1) God exists and is omniscient
P2) Man can do at least something else other than what God knows.

A1) If P1 is assumed true, then God cannot be wrong in what He knows will be chosen.
A2) A1 => the possibility of God being wrong is 0%.
A3) If P2 is assumed true, then there exists a non-zero possibility x% (0 < x < 100) that man can choose something other than what God knows will be chosen.
A4) A3 => the possibility of God being wrong is x% (0 < x <= 100)
A5) P1 ^ P2 => A2 ^ A4 => (x = 0%) ^ (0 < x <= 100)
A6) ~A5 Violation of Law of Non-Contradiction, can't have (P ^ ~P) for any proposition P.
A7) ~( P1 ^ P2) by Reductio Ad Absurdem; at least one of the premises is false.
C) ~P1 | ~P2 by DeMorgan's Law

The conclusion states: either God is not omniscient, or man cannot choose something other than what God knows.

Happy..........?

[biggles53]

Did God ever say, "I know what you're doing, therefore you have no free will?"

If he has ever claimed (or had it claimed on his behalf) that "I know exactly what you will do", then yes, free will is 'nullified'.....


Omniscience and free will defy your understanding of what God has said.

It matters not what "he said". Logic concludes that the two are incompatible....

In any case, your logic operates on very weak strands. Name what power knowledge has over action.

Perfect foreknowledge 'owns' action......

It is possible to get lost in deductive logic.


Agreed. What is really a very simple proposition can be made to appear complicated. Gee...do you think some people might want to intentionally muddy the waters......?:think:

[Semi-Sweet]

You are indeed correct. I can choose to believe or not believe...in ANY god.

However, what has this to do with accepting an illogical proposition concerning free will and omniscience...??

Prophecy - knowledge of the future. The sovereignty of God over against human responsibility runs all through Scripture.

If you had knowledge of the future, you could prophecy.

Judas, who freely chose, or so we presume to betray his Lord. And yet well before the betrayal, Jesus said to His disciples, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" John 6:70, as if he were following a script.

The apostle tells us that the passion of Jesus, initiated by Judas, was according to "the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God." Acts 2:23.

Here we have the mystery of foreknowledge. . .and human responsibility and freewill on the other. In the same context Jesus says, "One of you will betray me" as if it were foreordained. . ." . . .and . . . . ."Woe be to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Matthew 24:21,24.

If you could foresee what I would do tomorrow, you couldn't change my actions by your foreknowledge of those facts. I am still a free agent.

[mtdim]

If you can't see the images on the one, it doesn't really matter, they both say the same thing.

Just because you, a lay man, say something doesn't make it so.

There is no more of a causal effect on a future event by the knowing of the outcome, than there is a causal effect on a past event by knowing the outcome.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Modal

Modal

This is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the consequent of the conditional. “The” modal fallacy is the most well known of the infinitely many errors involving modal concepts, concepts such as necessity, possibility and so forth. A conditional is an if-then proposition. The consequent is the then-part, and the antecedent is the if-part.
Example:

If a proposition is true, then it can not be false. But if a proposition can not be false, then it is not only true but necessarily true. Therefore, if a proposition is true, then it’s necessarily true.

The acceptable interpretation of the first premise, requires the modality to apply to the entire conditional in the sense that it really means “It’s not possible that if a proposition is true, then it’s false.” However, the entire inference works only if the first premise is miscontrued as saying “If a proposition is true, then it is necessary that it’s not false.”

To see that the misconstrual is unacceptable, pick a proposition such as “It’s raining in Detroit.” Let’s suppose it actually is raining in Detroit. So, the antecedent of the misconstrual is true, but the consequent isn’t, because it says “It is necessary that ‘it’s raining in Detroit’ is not false.” This isn’t necessary, is it?

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the truth value of a given proposition is a reflection of the world, not the other way around (assume the proposition "I will eat cereal for breakfast on September 9th, 2009" is true. I will not eat cereal that morning because the proposition is true, but rather the proposition is true by virtue of the fact that I will eat cereal that morning).

The problem, though, is that causality implies a single temporal direction. You cannot say that "I will eat cereal on September 9th, 2009" is true until it has already happened, or else until the events that lead up to me eating cereal that morning are set and nothing can change it. So if god knew this proposition to be true 5000 years ago (before I even existed), then the events must have been set in such a way, even then, such that my eating cereal on September 9th, 2009 was already assured. Because I didn't exist back then, no decision I made could have set those events in motion or altered them, so how could I have free will?

[Meriweather]

If I understand you correctly you're saying that the truth value of a given proposition is a reflection of the world, not the other way around (assume the proposition "I will eat cereal for breakfast on September 9th, 2009" is true. I will not eat cereal that morning because the proposition is true, but rather the proposition is true by virtue of the fact that I will eat cereal that morning).

The problem, though, is that causality implies a single temporal direction. You cannot say that "I will eat cereal on September 9th, 2009" is true until it has already happened, or else until the events that lead up to me eating cereal that morning are set and nothing can change it. So if god knew this proposition to be true 5000 years ago (before I even existed), then the events must have been set in such a way, even then, such that my eating cereal on September 9th, 2009 was already assured. Because I didn't exist back then, no decision I made could have set those events in motion or altered them, so how could I have free will?


What those of us who are arguing for free will are trying to explain is that what happens in the future might set in motion waves (if you will) that travel back into the past. Although it is not a perfect analogy, imagine tossing a rock into the center of a small pond. Once the rock hits the water, ripples are set in motion--and they travel in all directions: Forwards, backwards, sideways.

Think of God dropping a rock (creation) into the cosmic pond and then being able to watch the ripples; those going forward (into the future); those going backwards (the past); and those moving to the side. Just because God (and prophets) can perceive what will sometimes happen in the future, does not mean God (or prophets) then forced the ripples to move as they did--they just watched as it rippled, and how things already in the pond changed the course and strength of those ripples.

Not a perfect analogy by any means, but what it is meant to get across is that God is a Watcher, not a puppet master.

[mtdim]

What those of us who are arguing for free will are trying to explain is that what happens in the future might set in motion waves (if you will) that travel back into the past. Although it is not a perfect analogy, imagine tossing a rock into the center of a small pond. Once the rock hits the water, ripples are set in motion--and they travel in all directions: Forwards, backwards, sideways.

Think of God dropping a rock (creation) into the cosmic pond and then being able to watch the ripples; those going forward (into the future); those going backwards (the past); and those moving to the side. Just because God (and prophets) can perceive what will sometimes happen in the future, does not mean God (or prophets) then forced the ripples to move as they did--they just watched as it rippled, and how things already in the pond changed the course and strength of those ripples.

Not a perfect analogy by any means, but what it is meant to get across is that God is a Watcher, not a puppet master.

I agree with this position to a certain extent. If we posit a god who exists completely apart from the universe who can look "in" at it from any spatial or temporal direction he/she pleases (the Deist's god perhaps?), then this god's omniscience may not be incompatible with free will of beings living in the universe. But this changes, I believe, if we say that this god can interact with the universe. If he makes things happen, talks to people, or else affects the universe in any way, free will goes right down the tubes. Why? Because god's omniscience allows him to know everything that people will choose to do and also allows him to know precisely how his own actions will cause people to act. He knew that a consequence of giving Moses the tablets with the commandments was that many Hebrew people would end up worshipping a golden calf in Moses's absence, and so by deciding to give the tablets he chose a specific sequence of events. Indeed, god knew that a very far-away and rather insignificant consequence of giving Moses the tablets was that I would end up eating cereal for breakfast on September 7, 2009.

An observer who knows the truth value of every proposition may not inherently negate free will. However, the moment that observer becomes an actor, he becomes a puppeteer holding all of the strings; he knows how each and every one of his actions will affect each and every human in existence. As a result, by choosing what he does, god also chooses what we do.

[Meriweather]

I agree with this position to a certain extent. If we posit a god who exists completely apart from the universe who can look "in" at it from any spatial or temporal direction he/she pleases (the Deist's god perhaps?), then this god's omniscience may not be incompatible with free will of beings living in the universe. But this changes, I believe, if we say that this god can interact with the universe. If he makes things happen, talks to people, or else affects the universe in any way, free will goes right down the tubes. Why? Because god's omniscience allows him to know everything that people will choose to do and also allows him to know precisely how his own actions will cause people to act. He knew that a consequence of giving Moses the tablets with the commandments was that many Hebrew people would end up worshipping a golden calf in Moses's absence, and so by deciding to give the tablets he chose a specific sequence of events. Indeed, god knew that a very far-away and rather insignificant consequence of giving Moses the tablets was that I would end up eating cereal for breakfast on September 7, 2009.

An observer who knows the truth value of every proposition may not inherently negate free will. However, the moment that observer becomes an actor, he becomes a puppeteer holding all of the strings; he knows how each and every one of his actions will affect each and every human in existence. As a result, by choosing what he does, god also chooses what we do.

I would argue that God, too, has the right to exercise free will. God exercising His own free will does not negate my own. There have been a couple of times in my life that had not God stepped in, I would have made entirely different decisions. Both time, although it was clear what God wished for me to do, the final decision was left solidly in my own hands. Did God influence me to the point I changed my mind? Absolutely--but I was not forced and nor did I feel in any way threatened. Free will is that important to God.

[mtdim]

I would argue that God, too, has the right to exercise free will. God exercising His own free will does not negate my own. There have been a couple of times in my life that had not God stepped in, I would have made entirely different decisions. Both time, although it was clear what God wished for me to do, the final decision was left solidly in my own hands. Did God influence me to the point I changed my mind? Absolutely--but I was not forced and nor did I feel in any way threatened. Free will is that important to God.

But remember, God is omniscient; he knows what you would have chosen if he hadn't stepped in, and he knew what decision you would make if he did step in. By choosing whether or not to step in, God chose which way you would choose. At best you have an illusion of free will.

[Meriweather]

But remember, God is omniscient; he knows what you would have chosen if he hadn't stepped in, and he knew what decision you would make if he did step in. By choosing whether or not to step in, God chose which way you would choose. At best you have an illusion of free will.

Not so. At least not necessarily so. Absolutely God could have seen the direction in which I was "drifting" (so to speak) because the actions of others and my subsequent actions/decisions made it plain. We don't live in a vacuum. The actions and decisions (free will) of others also bump and jostle us, sometimes putting us situations we never would have wandered into on our own. I could equally accuse family and colleagues of interfering with my free will as I could accuse God. All God did was put another choice before me, perhaps with a recommendation--but He did not choose for me. It was clear from the onset the final decision was mine--and mine alone.

[Quantrill]

There are some things for we who are Christians to consider concerning Gods will and mans will. Some verses in John picture it very well.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:....

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Both Gods will and mans will are involved. But mans will is not independent from Gods will. It can be contrary to God's will. It can be adamantly against God's will. But it is never independent of Gods will. But we exercise our will and we live or die by our decisions.

This is contrary to a totally "free will". But, why is that supposed by others to be a bad thing. Indeed, was not this something that Satan himself sought. "I will ". A will that is free.

And, contrary to that, we have Jesus Christ who came to do only the Fathers will. John 6:38. Did Jesus Christ ever exercise a decision that was His alone. Did He not tell Pilate when Pilate said he had authority to release Him, that he had no authority save what His Father gave him.

Do we not have in the Lords Prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". We who are Christians, in our walk with the Lord, in this life, are always learning; "not my will but Thy will". A hard lesson.

I believe that when we are with the Lord in Heaven, that our wills will never contridict the Lords will. It is unimaginable to me at this time, but it must be so. How free a will is that?

I am saying this because "free will" has the ring of freedom in it, and who wants to be arguing against that. But, with God a free will is an independent and dangerous thing. And God is not democratic.

Perhaps our view of the purpose of God in this creation and the creation of man is what makes us want to say man has "free will".

Quantrill

[biggles53]

If you could foresee what I would do tomorrow, you couldn't change my actions by your foreknowledge of those facts. I am still a free agent.

If my foreknowledge was 'perfect', as is attributed to your god, then whatever I saw happening tomorrow, including your actions, MUST be realised.....

The BEST you can claim is that you feel as if you are taking a 'free' decision...but it MUST conform with what I saw.

[biggles53]

Think of God dropping a rock (creation) into the cosmic pond and then being able to watch the ripples; those going forward (into the future); those going backwards (the past); and those moving to the side. Just because God (and prophets) can perceive what will sometimes happen in the future, does not mean God (or prophets) then forced the ripples to move as they did--they just watched as it rippled, and how things already in the pond changed the course and strength of those ripples.

Not a perfect analogy by any means, but what it is meant to get across is that God is a Watcher, not a puppet master.

You still have a problem Mer....

Even if your god is simply a 'watcher' of how those ripples played out, he has still 'seen' the future! And his sight is purported to be perfect. So whatever he has seen, even though he may not have directed those 'ripples' MUST play out as he has seen them.

No. free. will.

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

OK, there have been a number of threads started recently which have to do with prophecy...in particular, those concerned with the "end times"...so I thought it appropriate to raise once again the objection of God's supposed omniscience (perfect foreknowledge) sitting uncomfortably alongside the claim that mankind has been 'granted' free will.

The two cannot logically co-exist.

You can either hold that God has perfect advance knowledge of ALL things that man will do...in which case, men have no choice but to do what was foreseen.

Or, you can hold that men are completely free to make choices...in which case, God cannot 'know' what those choices will be, rendering his omniscience kaput...and therefore his ability to make prophecy impotent.

But, you can't have both.

Have at it, if you will.....



We can't have both in our sphere of existence but God is in a much higher and different "place". Yes, we do have freedom of choice. Yes God is aware in advance of how we shall choose. In order to bring ourselves closer to any understanding of this seeming contradiction we have to trust and imagine our being in an existence which has no material basis. Without material there is no time as there is no measure of distance or velocity, the factors of time. Here our thinking processes are also much different. Without time our thoughts would not be linear, one after or before another. Here everything simply "is". "I am" is supposed to be quote from God. This is what "eternity" is. Eternity is not the endless progression of time. Eternity describes an existence with NO where time is non-existent. Herein we may simply "know".

The key to further understanding lies in the purpose of it all. Why, exactly, are we created in the first place? Does God need us for some reason? Does He merely want to be worshiped? Discover those answers and they will bring the realizations which explain preordained free will. Lacking this, or during the interim, faith is purported to be of use.:neutral:

[biggles53]

We can't have both in our sphere of existence but God is in a much higher and different "place". Yes, we do have freedom of choice. Yes God is aware in advance of how we shall choose. In order to bring ourselves closer to any understanding of this seeming contradiction we have to trust and imagine our being in an existence which has no material basis. Without material there is no time as there is no measure of distance or velocity, the factors of time. Here our thinking processes are also much different. Without time our thoughts would not be linear, one after or before another. Here everything simply "is". "I am" is supposed to be quote from God. This is what "eternity" is. Eternity is not the endless progression of time. Eternity describes an existence with NO where time is non-existent. Herein we may simply "know".



That's all very fine.....for your god!

But the rest of us exist very much in a reality dominated by a linear expression of time. And it is here that the problem arises. Because, for us, the future has still to unfold, we cannot know what it will be in advance. However, if one postulates that a being is somehow able to do this, because said being exists "outside of time", it doesn't alter the reality for the humans living in the 'real' world. Their actions will occur one after the other, through time. If ANY action is "known" before it takes place, then that action MUST unfold as it was 'seen'.....

[Meriweather]

You still have a problem Mer....

Even if your god is simply a 'watcher' of how those ripples played out, he has still 'seen' the future! And his sight is purported to be perfect. So whatever he has seen, even though he may not have directed those 'ripples' MUST play out as he has seen them.

No. free. will.

What God may be watching is choice unfold. Choice is choice, and it must happen before it is seen. You see free will as a fallacy. If a being can move through time; or read time waves, then it is the way we perceive time that is the fallacy, not the way we perceive free will.

[Meriweather]

That's all very fine.....for your god!

But the rest of us exist very much in a reality dominated by a linear expression of time. And it is here that the problem arises. Because, for us, the future has still to unfold, we cannot know what it will be in advance. However, if one postulates that a being is somehow able to do this, because said being exists "outside of time", it doesn't alter the reality for the humans living in the 'real' world. Their actions will occur one after the other, through time. If ANY action is "known" before it takes place, then that action MUST unfold as it was 'seen'.....

Rather, it is seen as it unfolds, but God can move back in time with the knowledge.

[Semi-Sweet]

If my foreknowledge was 'perfect', as is attributed to your god, then whatever I saw happening tomorrow, including your actions, MUST be realised.....

The BEST you can claim is that you feel as if you are taking a 'free' decision...but it MUST conform with what I saw.

I am glad that God is in control.


In a true sense it is only because God is God that He is big enough to allow human free will to lead such awful calamities as those of which the world is full and yet know that ultimately He can so handle the situation as to bring out of chaos the achievement of His purpose with nothing of final value ultimate lost. . . .Leslie D. Weatherhead.

[biggles53]

Rather, it is seen as it unfolds, but God can move back in time with the knowledge.

Thank you, thank you..

And, having moved "back in time", taking that knowledge with him, he is now in a position whereby that action has still to take place. So, what is now a future action MUST conform to the 'sneak peek' that your god had at it!

You see Mer, it doesn't matter whether he zapped himself forward and simply viewed the person making the choice - if he exists in a time 'space' whereby he is also in the 'past', relative to human activity, then he already knows what an event will be before it takes place.

He doesn't need to "move" you see. He could have just as effectively 'stayed' where he was and 'seen' forward.....

[biggles53]

You see free will as a fallacy.

No I don't Mer....I see free will as being perfectly logical! What I see as the fallacy in this dilemma is the concept of an all-seeing deity!

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

The wisdom of this world insists that we live by sight by rules of common sense.

People cannot be expected to believe what is contrary to common sense.

Grace is absurd. The very basics of faith is absurd to the world. How much sense does prayer make? Walking on water. Water to wine. Dead men brought to life. To find ones life is to lose it. Dipping in water to cure leprosy. Strength in weakness. . . . .

2 Cor. 12:9. . ."My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." "For the sake of Christ, then I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities: for when I am weak, then I am strong." :eek:

The only answer I have to give is to accept the mystery. . . .which is an act of faith. We can believe in God's foreknowledge and also believe that human kind is free to accept or reject.




Nice to read about common sense in a religion thread. No offense to anyone reading.

All of those things which are mentioned do have real explanations which are both understandable and demonstrable but they are of no real importance. Being just a good person is a lot more important than being a spiritual smarty pants.:surprised

[James-Jacob-Yaqub]

That's all very fine.....for your god!

But the rest of us exist very much in a reality dominated by a linear expression of time. And it is here that the problem arises. Because, for us, the future has still to unfold, we cannot know what it will be in advance. However, if one postulates that a being is somehow able to do this, because said being exists "outside of time", it doesn't alter the reality for the humans living in the 'real' world. Their actions will occur one after the other, through time. If ANY action is "known" before it takes place, then that action MUST unfold as it was 'seen'.....


Pardon me for not being clear. We are not normally called upon to struggle with these concepts. God (and there is only one, ours) is quite aware of this and usually employs prophets when He means to communicate with His children on Earth. We, then, usually employ faith in the words of the prophet to carry us past that which might otherwise seem "a bit too much for normal reasoning".

But to clarify you response:

"If ANY action is "known" before it takes place, then that action MUST unfold as it was 'seen'...."

Your assertion is absolutely correct. It is logical and compatible considering our human boundaries of experience. We are often admonished to accept certain things on faith alone. This might, for us, be one of those. But will you consider that God has this capability regardless of our capacity to reason it through? I do. I have attempted to bring it to where we might have a chance of understanding but I do not have any special access unknown to others. I speak out of conviction that we are simply not capable of meeting with the Mind of God on His level. I therefore trust that certain things are true even though they cannot be true here on Earth.

I do not blame you for rejecting my argument. It has no importance except maybe in a scholarly way. I mean, what the hell, this is only a discussion forum after all.:rolleyes:

[Meriweather]

No I don't Mer....I see free will as being perfectly logical! What I see as the fallacy in this dilemma is the concept of an all-seeing deity!

Yes. And several of us here have explained over and over and over again that free will comes first, and the rest follows after. You seem unable to wrap your mind around that concept, and it seems the reason you are unable to is because you are so insistent there is no God. Your arguments fail, biggles.

As I explained, despite my own experiences, I don't even truly accept the thought that the future can be seen. However, because of my own experiences, I cannot entirely dismiss it, either. There is something about time that we don't truly understand. Free will, on the other hand is perfectly clear. It seems you are making some convoluted attempt to prove to yourself that free will and God cannot exist together--that since free will is a fact you feel there there can be no God. You limit yourself and your understanding.

[Quantrill]

That's all very fine.....for your god!

But the rest of us exist very much in a reality dominated by a linear expression of time. And it is here that the problem arises. Because, for us, the future has still to unfold, we cannot know what it will be in advance. However, if one postulates that a being is somehow able to do this, because said being exists "outside of time", it doesn't alter the reality for the humans living in the 'real' world. Their actions will occur one after the other, through time. If ANY action is "known" before it takes place, then that action MUST unfold as it was 'seen'.....

The Christian lives in the same reality of time.

For us the future has to unfold also. Though God has given us much to know of it.

Agreed, though God is outside of time, our actions occur one after another through time also.

Yes, all action will unfold as God has seen.

This is not a problem for the Christian. And that appears to be your problem.

Quantrill

[biggles53]

Yes. And several of us here have explained over and over and over again that free will comes first, and the rest follows after. You seem unable to wrap your mind around that concept, and it seems the reason you are unable to is because you are so insistent there is no God. Your arguments fail, biggles.

No Mer...what you and others have asserted is that "free will comes first, and the rest follows after"....however, you have neither the evidence nor a logical standpoint from which to make such an assertion. Look at the 'case' I presented below. It allows for the assumption that BOTH omniscience AND free will exist. It matters not which order they appear...the bottom line is that one reaches a logical contradiction in attempting to permit them both to stand.

And, my argument does NOT stand on an insistence that there is no god...for Pete's sake, the whole argument that I put rests on the assumption that he/she/it DOES!


As I explained, despite my own experiences, I don't even truly accept the thought that the future can be seen. However, because of my own experiences, I cannot entirely dismiss it, either. There is something about time that we don't truly understand. Free will, on the other hand is perfectly clear. It seems you are making some convoluted attempt to prove to yourself that free will and God cannot exist together--that since free will is a fact you feel there there can be no God. You limit yourself and your understanding.

I can only permit such a duality if I allow my self to enter into some form of cognitive dissonance - whereby I only allow myself to focus on one concept at a time. Because, to attempt to permit both concepts to stand, side by side, is to visualise a square circle......

And, again, you misrepresent my argument. I hold that free will and OMNISCIENCE cannot exist together - whether it is your god or a rock doing the 'seeing' is immaterial.....

[biggles53]

The Christian lives in the same reality of time.

Indeed they do.

For us the future has to unfold also.

Agreed.

Though God has given us much to know of it.

So you assert.

Agreed, though God is outside of time, our actions occur one after another through time also.

We're doin' fine.....

Yes, all action will unfold as God has seen.

Again, YOUR assertion...

This is not a problem for the Christian. And that appears to be your problem.

Quantrill

I have no problem. The problem that exists is that one reaches a logical contradiction when one tries to reconcile the existence of an omniscient being alongside the idea of free will. You'll note that, above, you leave free will entirely out of the equation....you're only arguing half a case....

[Quantrill]

Indeed they do.



Agreed.



So you assert.



We're doin' fine.....



Again, YOUR assertion...



I have no problem. The problem that exists is that one reaches a logical contradiction when one tries to reconcile the existence of an omniscient being alongside the idea of free will. You'll note that, above, you leave free will entirely out of the equation....you're only arguing half a case....

You have no problem? So you assert.

I didn't leave anything out. I followed your previous reply and answered your statements.

Your last statement was, "If any action is 'known' before it takes place, then that action must unfold as it was seen" Im sure you had "free will" in mind when you said it, though I dont see it written in there. And I had it in mind when I replied also.

I replied to your statement, "Yes all action will unfold as God has seen".

To you this is a problem, though you didn't fully explain yourself. To this I agreed what God has seen will unfold. And that it is no problem for the Christian.

So, what you present as a problem, is no problem to the Christian. You say you have no problem. Then whose problem is it?

Quantrill

[mtdim]

Not so. At least not necessarily so. Absolutely God could have seen the direction in which I was "drifting" (so to speak) because the actions of others and my subsequent actions/decisions made it plain. We don't live in a vacuum. The actions and decisions (free will) of others also bump and jostle us, sometimes putting us situations we never would have wandered into on our own. I could equally accuse family and colleagues of interfering with my free will as I could accuse God. All God did was put another choice before me, perhaps with a recommendation--but He did not choose for me. It was clear from the onset the final decision was mine--and mine alone.

It seems that you are describing an ultra insightful being as opposed to an omniscient one. An omniscient being would know more than which way you were "drifting," he/she would know with absolute certainty which way you will choose. Anything less is not omniscience.

[Meriweather]

It seems that you are describing an ultra insightful being as opposed to an omniscient one. An omniscient being would know more than which way you were "drifting," he/she would know with absolute certainty which way you will choose. Anything less is not omniscience.

Again: I believe the "omni" descriptions ultimately fail. In another thread I explained that such words as "all knowing" must be used in context. If something cannot be known, then even God cannot know it.

I don't believe anyone has truly established if God can know the future. Someone declared God knows everything, and because the future is a part of everthing, then God must know it. I say, "Back up. Can the future be known? If so, how much of it, and when?" If the future cannot be known, then even God cannot know it.

I wish I could say with absolute certainty that the future cannot be known. However, I know from personal experience that it seems that sometimes the future, or at least parts of it, can be known. Still the question remains, how much of the future can be known, and when? That is the question I feel we should be addressing.

[mtdim]

Again: I believe the "omni" descriptions ultimately fail. In another thread I explained that such words as "all knowing" must be used in context. If something cannot be known, then even God cannot know it.

I don't believe anyone has truly established if God can know the future. Someone declared God knows everything, and because the future is a part of everthing, then God must know it. I say, "Back up. Can the future be known? If so, how much of it, and when?" If the future cannot be known, then even God cannot know it.

I wish I could say with absolute certainty that the future cannot be known. However, I know from personal experience that it seems that sometimes the future, or at least parts of it, can be known. Still the question remains, how much of the future can be known, and when? That is the question I feel we should be addressing.

Very interesting. If you believe that the existence of free will means that there are some things that not even God can know, then you seem to be in agreement with me and with the premise of this thread that free will and omniscience are incompatible. It appears that our disagreement is nothing more than a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "omniscience."

[Meriweather]

Very interesting. If you believe that the existence of free will means that there are some things that not even God can know, then you seem to be in agreement with me and with the premise of this thread that free will and omniscience are incompatible. It appears that our disagreement is nothing more than a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "omniscience."

Even if omniscience (a big if) is fact, I don't necessarily consider it incompatible with free will. They may intertwine in a way we do not perceive. I will say if I have to believe in one over the other, I would choose free will.

[biggles53]

Even if omniscience (a big if) is fact, I don't necessarily consider it incompatible with free will. They may intertwine in a way we do not perceive. I will say if I have to believe in one over the other, I would choose free will.


Yay!! Mer's on our team....!

[mtdim]

Even if omniscience (a big if) is fact, I don't necessarily consider it incompatible with free will. They may intertwine in a way we do not perceive. I will say if I have to believe in one over the other, I would choose free will.

Me too. In the words of Neil Peart:

I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will

[biggles53]

OK, since no-one seemed able to lay a glove on the omniscience/free will contradiction, here's just one of the implications that flow from attempting to simultaneously hold that both exist...

You have (supposedly) a being which is all-powerful, AND has the ability to see all past, present and future events. It knows with perfect accuracy all the things that you and I will do and think for our entire lives....IN ADVANCE. Not only that, it supposedly CREATED us in such a way that we WOULD do and think those things.

So, having 'programmed' us, and 'knowing' all that we will do even before we think of doing it, it then sits in judgement of those very thoughts and actions! Thoughts and actions that it knew we would perform, and so could not avoid!

I can not think of a more immoral, unjust manner in which to treat another.....and we're meant to worship such beastly behaviour..??? How fortunate that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists....!

[All2Human]

OK, since no-one seemed able to lay a glove on the omniscience/free will contradiction, here's just one of the implications that flow from attempting to simultaneously hold that both exist...

You have (supposedly) a being which is all-powerful, AND has the ability to see all past, present and future events. It knows with perfect accuracy all the things that you and I will do and think for our entire lives....IN ADVANCE. Not only that, it supposedly CREATED us in such a way that we WOULD do and think those things.

So, having 'programmed' us, and 'knowing' all that we will do even before we think of doing it, it then sits in judgement of those very thoughts and actions! Thoughts and actions that it knew we would perform, and so could not avoid!

I can not think of a more immoral, unjust manner in which to treat another.....and we're meant to worship such beastly behaviour..??? How fortunate that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists....!

Well it's only a contradiction if both exist. The assumption of free will is based on non-divided "I". But who is speaking? That is the more interesting question.

[biggles53]

Well it's only a contradiction if both exist. The assumption of free will is based on non-divided "I". But who is speaking? That is the more interesting question.

Que...?

Care to expound on that....?

[mattlock]

OK, since no-one seemed able to lay a glove on the omniscience/free will contradiction, here's just one of the implications that flow from attempting to simultaneously hold that both exist...

You have (supposedly) a being which is all-powerful, AND has the ability to see all past, present and future events. It knows with perfect accuracy all the things that you and I will do and think for our entire lives....IN ADVANCE. Not only that, it supposedly CREATED us in such a way that we WOULD do and think those things.

So, having 'programmed' us, and 'knowing' all that we will do even before we think of doing it, it then sits in judgement of those very thoughts and actions! Thoughts and actions that it knew we would perform, and so could not avoid!

I can not think of a more immoral, unjust manner in which to treat another.....and we're meant to worship such beastly behaviour..??? How fortunate that there is absolutely no evidence that it even exists....!

Let me ask a question... Just because I know the sun is going to rise at 7:38 AM tomorrow morning, does that mean that I MADE it rise?

[biggles53]

Let me ask a question... Just because I know the sun is going to rise at 7:38 AM tomorrow morning, does that mean that I MADE it rise?

IF you are a perfectly omniscient being, then the sun would have no other 'choice' than to rise at that time.....:D



"Omniscience and determinism are functionally equivalent." (can't remember who said it....)

[All2Human]

Que...?

Care to expound on that....?

What are the conditions that make possible a relatively stable consciousness?

Free will is based on a metaphysical assumption of a subject or "I" that is whole and singular on the basis of the present. But time is out of joint to quote Hamlet. What we call the present is also divided. In order for the present to be present, some interval has to separate the present from what it's not. Things are already past or still to come.

So as I said, free will is based on the present but if the present is divided then so to is the subject and free will.

So who is deciding? Who is speaking? You are more then one person.

Consciousness is an effect not a Cartesian absolute. Difference is not secondary to consciousness but a condition that makes it possible. The "I" in Descartes cannot be absolutely present with itself because presence is constituted by absence, the past, the future. In other words, differences.

Descartes is about style and not truth. "I perform, therefore I am" even if I am completely mad. It is philosophy that makes you feel better even though you are mad or when you are closest to madness.